Dempsy is a scum sucking Obama butt kisser

[Edgetho]

Are we still in the bottom half of this Country --

Guess which half is occupied by the dimocrap scum of Asia?

 

[Edgetho]

Here is a different perspective. You can see Vladivostok, China, Mongolia, North and South Korea.

The dark part? That's how dimocrap scum want us to live.

See Pyongyang? The only lit part of North Korea? That's where dimocrap scum elites would live.

You are God-Damned fool if you think I'm kidding around

 

[SassyIrishLass]

You are actually whining about a President who kept his campaign promise like it is a bad thing for candidates to keep promises. That is because your side never does. It seems weird to you that a candidate would. And you publicly whine about it like you are making a point other than what a fool you are

Obama never promised in his campaign that he would lose the war in Iraq. If he had you would have a valid point.

The war, was WON ALREADY, you guys claim BUSH WON THE WAR IN IRAQ, if Bush won the war, then it could never be lost by Obama....

Bush LOST this battle in Iraq within the FIRST 2 YEARS OF THE CONFLICT....when this war that was only suppose to take 3 months was not won decisively early on ...

.

Then came the surge (that all of you said wouldn't work) and what a game changer that was

 

[SassyIrishLass]

I feel a lot of the conservatives here that are saying we had 'won the war' while Bush was in office, and that Obama 'lost it' by pulling troops out, are only saying it because of partisan political bias.

To 'win' means that you can come home. If your argument is that Obama 'lost' by pulling out, then there is something wrong with your definition of winning.

\.

So we didn't win WWII? For decades we had troops in Germany and Japan.

Major fail on your part.

 

[SassyIrishLass]

Dempsey does the right thing and apologizes...

 

[Publius1787]

I would prefer a commander of the Joint Chiefs that had actually seen combat in a combat arms capacity. Since when do we promote generals to make such crucial decisions on the lives of troops when the generals haven't seen combat?

Where did Dempsey earn the bronze star with the V? Nobody seems to know

Iraq hasn't been lost. The thread is bull crap.

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

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.

 

[-S-]

I feel a lot of the conservatives here that are saying we had 'won the war' while Bush was in office, and that Obama 'lost it' by pulling troops out, are only saying it because of partisan political bias.

To 'win' means that you can come home. If your argument is that Obama 'lost' by pulling out, then there is something wrong with your definition of winning.

\.

So we didn't win WWII? For decades we had troops in Germany and Japan.

Major fail on your part.

I don't think so.

The problem with your comparison is the fact that with WWII, American troops eventually QUIT BEING SHOT AT. Not quite the same thing, dear.

Also, I would just like to point out that you comparing us winning in WWII
to us 'WINNING' IN IRAQ is a FAR greater 'fail' than I could ever hope achieve. So congratulations on that one.

We 'won' in Iraq like we 'won' in Vietnam.

 

[SassyIrishLass]

I feel a lot of the conservatives here that are saying we had 'won the war' while Bush was in office, and that Obama 'lost it' by pulling troops out, are only saying it because of partisan political bias.

To 'win' means that you can come home. If your argument is that Obama 'lost' by pulling out, then there is something wrong with your definition of winning.

\.

So we didn't win WWII? For decades we had troops in Germany and Japan.

Major fail on your part.

I don't think so.

The problem with your comparison is the fact that with WWII, American troops eventually QUIT BEING SHOT AT. Not quite the same thing, dear.

Also, I would just like to point out that you comparing us winning in WWII
to us 'WINNING' IN IRAQ is a FAR greater 'fail' than I could ever hope achieve. So congratulations on that one.

We 'won' in Iraq like we 'won' in Vietnam.

We lost Nam, we won in Iraq then your boy Obama bungled it away.

 

[-S-]

I feel a lot of the conservatives here that are saying we had 'won the war' while Bush was in office, and that Obama 'lost it' by pulling troops out, are only saying it because of partisan political bias.

To 'win' means that you can come home. If your argument is that Obama 'lost' by pulling out, then there is something wrong with your definition of winning.

\.

So we didn't win WWII? For decades we had troops in Germany and Japan.

Major fail on your part.

I feel a lot of the conservatives here that are saying we had 'won the war' while Bush was in office, and that Obama 'lost it' by pulling troops out, are only saying it because of partisan political bias.

To 'win' means that you can come home. If your argument is that Obama 'lost' by pulling out, then there is something wrong with your definition of winning.

\.

So we didn't win WWII? For decades we had troops in Germany and Japan.

Major fail on your part.

I don't think so.

The problem with your comparison is the fact that with WWII, American troops eventually QUIT BEING SHOT AT. Not quite the same thing, dear.

Also, I would just like to point out that you comparing us winning in WWII
to us 'WINNING' IN IRAQ is a FAR greater 'fail' than I could ever hope achieve. So congratulations on that one.

We 'won' in Iraq like we 'won' in Vietnam.

We lost Nam, we won in Iraq then your boy Obama bungled it away.

How exactly do you lose a war that is already won? Please let me know another time that has happened in the history of the universe.

And what year did we win, pray tell?
Can you send me an unbiased, fact based source that proves this claim?

If you can't, quit replying.

 

[SassyIrishLass]

I feel a lot of the conservatives here that are saying we had 'won the war' while Bush was in office, and that Obama 'lost it' by pulling troops out, are only saying it because of partisan political bias.

To 'win' means that you can come home. If your argument is that Obama 'lost' by pulling out, then there is something wrong with your definition of winning.

\.

So we didn't win WWII? For decades we had troops in Germany and Japan.

Major fail on your part.

I feel a lot of the conservatives here that are saying we had 'won the war' while Bush was in office, and that Obama 'lost it' by pulling troops out, are only saying it because of partisan political bias.

To 'win' means that you can come home. If your argument is that Obama 'lost' by pulling out, then there is something wrong with your definition of winning.

\.

So we didn't win WWII? For decades we had troops in Germany and Japan.

Major fail on your part.

I don't think so.

The problem with your comparison is the fact that with WWII, American troops eventually QUIT BEING SHOT AT. Not quite the same thing, dear.

Also, I would just like to point out that you comparing us winning in WWII
to us 'WINNING' IN IRAQ is a FAR greater 'fail' than I could ever hope achieve. So congratulations on that one.

We 'won' in Iraq like we 'won' in Vietnam.

We lost Nam, we won in Iraq then your boy Obama bungled it away.

How exactly do you lose a war that is already won? Please let me know another time that has happened in the history of the universe.

And what year did we win, pray tell?
Can you send me an unbiased, fact based source that proves this claim?

If you can't, quit replying.

First, don't EVER try and tell me what to do. Understand this, I don't take direction from you.

You progs love to compare Nam and Iraq as "bad wars" and they are very similar in one regard, they were both won...and then lost. Why? Because Washington walked away. We achieved results and then "got tired" of war and walked away. Both times leaving us in a poor strategic position. That weak position in Iraq is why what's happening now is happening and it's spilling over into the entire ME. Our enemies know Obama is a paper tiger, they also knew President Bush wasn't.

 

[-S-]

I feel a lot of the conservatives here that are saying we had 'won the war' while Bush was in office, and that Obama 'lost it' by pulling troops out, are only saying it because of partisan political bias.

To 'win' means that you can come home. If your argument is that Obama 'lost' by pulling out, then there is something wrong with your definition of winning.

\.

So we didn't win WWII? For decades we had troops in Germany and Japan.

Major fail on your part.

I feel a lot of the conservatives here that are saying we had 'won the war' while Bush was in office, and that Obama 'lost it' by pulling troops out, are only saying it because of partisan political bias.

To 'win' means that you can come home. If your argument is that Obama 'lost' by pulling out, then there is something wrong with your definition of winning.

\.

So we didn't win WWII? For decades we had troops in Germany and Japan.

Major fail on your part.

I don't think so.

The problem with your comparison is the fact that with WWII, American troops eventually QUIT BEING SHOT AT. Not quite the same thing, dear.

Also, I would just like to point out that you comparing us winning in WWII
to us 'WINNING' IN IRAQ is a FAR greater 'fail' than I could ever hope achieve. So congratulations on that one.

We 'won' in Iraq like we 'won' in Vietnam.

We lost Nam, we won in Iraq then your boy Obama bungled it away.

How exactly do you lose a war that is already won? Please let me know another time that has happened in the history of the universe.

And what year did we win, pray tell?
Can you send me an unbiased, fact based source that proves this claim?

If you can't, quit replying.

First, don't EVER try and tell me what to do. Understand this, I don't take direction from you.

You progs love to compare Nam and Iraq as "bad wars" and they are very similar in one regard, they were both won...and then lost. Why? Because Washington walked away. We achieved results and then "got tired" of war and walked away. Both times leaving us in a poor strategic position. That weak position in Iraq is why what's happening now is happening and it's spilling over into the entire ME. Our enemies know Obama is a paper tiger, they also knew President Bush wasn't.

Once again, give me a source, or don't reply.


And just to make sure we're on the same page, this:

is not a valid source.

 

[SassyIrishLass]

I feel a lot of the conservatives here that are saying we had 'won the war' while Bush was in office, and that Obama 'lost it' by pulling troops out, are only saying it because of partisan political bias.

To 'win' means that you can come home. If your argument is that Obama 'lost' by pulling out, then there is something wrong with your definition of winning.

\.

So we didn't win WWII? For decades we had troops in Germany and Japan.

Major fail on your part.

So we didn't win WWII? For decades we had troops in Germany and Japan.

Major fail on your part.

I don't think so.

The problem with your comparison is the fact that with WWII, American troops eventually QUIT BEING SHOT AT. Not quite the same thing, dear.

Also, I would just like to point out that you comparing us winning in WWII
to us 'WINNING' IN IRAQ is a FAR greater 'fail' than I could ever hope achieve. So congratulations on that one.

We 'won' in Iraq like we 'won' in Vietnam.

We lost Nam, we won in Iraq then your boy Obama bungled it away.

How exactly do you lose a war that is already won? Please let me know another time that has happened in the history of the universe.

And what year did we win, pray tell?
Can you send me an unbiased, fact based source that proves this claim?

If you can't, quit replying.

First, don't EVER try and tell me what to do. Understand this, I don't take direction from you.

You progs love to compare Nam and Iraq as "bad wars" and they are very similar in one regard, they were both won...and then lost. Why? Because Washington walked away. We achieved results and then "got tired" of war and walked away. Both times leaving us in a poor strategic position. That weak position in Iraq is why what's happening now is happening and it's spilling over into the entire ME. Our enemies know Obama is a paper tiger, they also knew President Bush wasn't.

Once again, give me a source, or don't reply.


And just to make sure we're on the same page, this:

is not a valid source.

Once again, egghead, I do NOT take direction from you. Now unball your little fists and stop stomping your feet....and get over yourself.

 

[-S-]

I feel a lot of the conservatives here that are saying we had 'won the war' while Bush was in office, and that Obama 'lost it' by pulling troops out, are only saying it because of partisan political bias.

To 'win' means that you can come home. If your argument is that Obama 'lost' by pulling out, then there is something wrong with your definition of winning.

\.

So we didn't win WWII? For decades we had troops in Germany and Japan.

Major fail on your part.

I don't think so.

The problem with your comparison is the fact that with WWII, American troops eventually QUIT BEING SHOT AT. Not quite the same thing, dear.

Also, I would just like to point out that you comparing us winning in WWII
to us 'WINNING' IN IRAQ is a FAR greater 'fail' than I could ever hope achieve. So congratulations on that one.

We 'won' in Iraq like we 'won' in Vietnam.

We lost Nam, we won in Iraq then your boy Obama bungled it away.

How exactly do you lose a war that is already won? Please let me know another time that has happened in the history of the universe.

And what year did we win, pray tell?
Can you send me an unbiased, fact based source that proves this claim?

If you can't, quit replying.

First, don't EVER try and tell me what to do. Understand this, I don't take direction from you.

You progs love to compare Nam and Iraq as "bad wars" and they are very similar in one regard, they were both won...and then lost. Why? Because Washington walked away. We achieved results and then "got tired" of war and walked away. Both times leaving us in a poor strategic position. That weak position in Iraq is why what's happening now is happening and it's spilling over into the entire ME. Our enemies know Obama is a paper tiger, they also knew President Bush wasn't.

Once again, give me a source, or don't reply.


And just to make sure we're on the same page, this:

is not a valid source.

Once again, egghead, I do NOT take direction from you. Now unball your little fists and stop stomping your feet....and get over yourself.

"Egghead"..?
Good one.

Source your claims, Sass.
I'm not humoring anymore ridiculous notions. Only factual arguments on a subject like this that involves fallen Americans.

That's all I have to say.

Either come back with a fact, or don't come back at all.

 

[Publius1787]

I feel a lot of the conservatives here that are saying we had 'won the war' while Bush was in office, and that Obama 'lost it' by pulling troops out, are only saying it because of partisan political bias.

To 'win' means that you can come home. If your argument is that Obama 'lost' by pulling out, then there is something wrong with your definition of winning.

\.

So we didn't win WWII? For decades we had troops in Germany and Japan.

Major fail on your part.

I don't think so.

The problem with your comparison is the fact that with WWII, American troops eventually QUIT BEING SHOT AT. Not quite the same thing, dear.

Also, I would just like to point out that you comparing us winning in WWII
to us 'WINNING' IN IRAQ is a FAR greater 'fail' than I could ever hope achieve. So congratulations on that one.

We 'won' in Iraq like we 'won' in Vietnam.

Having served in Iraq (Al Anbar Provence) I can tell you that we not only secured the area but we convinced the locals to defend themselves against the Muj. When we left the municipalities of the Al Anbar province were functioning fine. All that was left was to leave a residual force for special operations, advisory/training roles, and intelligence purposes. Obama blew that. Now we find that Bush was correct when he said we will likely need to return if we did not leave a force behind. Remember this, Bush did not lose Iraq, the troops did not lose Iraq, Obama lost Iraq. Now ISIS controls western Iraq and the Iranians have more influence in Eastern Iraq than we do. All of this so Obama could ignore our national security interests for a popular and cheap talking point that "he got the troops out of Iraq."

 

[SassyIrishLass]

So we didn't win WWII? For decades we had troops in Germany and Japan.

Major fail on your part.

We lost Nam, we won in Iraq then your boy Obama bungled it away.

How exactly do you lose a war that is already won? Please let me know another time that has happened in the history of the universe.

And what year did we win, pray tell?
Can you send me an unbiased, fact based source that proves this claim?

If you can't, quit replying.

First, don't EVER try and tell me what to do. Understand this, I don't take direction from you.

You progs love to compare Nam and Iraq as "bad wars" and they are very similar in one regard, they were both won...and then lost. Why? Because Washington walked away. We achieved results and then "got tired" of war and walked away. Both times leaving us in a poor strategic position. That weak position in Iraq is why what's happening now is happening and it's spilling over into the entire ME. Our enemies know Obama is a paper tiger, they also knew President Bush wasn't.

Once again, give me a source, or don't reply.


And just to make sure we're on the same page, this:

is not a valid source.

Once again, egghead, I do NOT take direction from you. Now unball your little fists and stop stomping your feet....and get over yourself.

"Egghead"..?
Good one.

Source your claims, Sass.
I'm not humoring anymore ridiculous notions. Only factual arguments on a subject like this that involves fallen Americans.

That's all I have to say.

Either come back with a fact, or don't come back at all.

I came back, now what's your plan? Again, get over yourself, little dude. You are a nothing, learn it....then live it

 

[BlindBoo]

After 9-11 all we could think to do to protect from another attack was to remove nation leaders that had a hatred for America and that is what Bush did with the support of almost everyone in DC including Hillary Clinton.

Not how it happened at all. The Bush Administration had a laser like focused on Iraq and how to capitalize on the tragedy of that day and used it to invade Iraq and overthrow Saddam Hussein. The propaganda machine started churning out stories demonizing Saddam and building up, in the public's mind, how much of a menacing threat he was. Even though Iraq was under crippling sanctions and had been for years. Rice and Powell repeatedly acknowledged their beliefs that he had not been able to restart his WMD program or rebuild his conventional army. That didn't matter. The policy of invasion was set and it took them a year and a half or so to fix the facts around that policy.


Over half the Democrats in Congress voted against giving President Bush Card Blanch in Iraq too. Now you know.

Saddam was trying to do exactly what Iran is trying to do today. The UN was about to give them (Iraq) cart blanch to do it. America was aced out of the deal.....so they were obviously up to something. Intel said Saddam was waiting for the go ahead from the UN to restart his weapons programs without sanctions..........just like Iran.

Not even close to reality. Saddams secret nuclear program was destroyed in the First Gulf War. Sneaky bastard snuck all the material he needed right from under the nose of St. RayGun and Bush 42. The West was not aware of it's existence until they reviewed the results of one of their bombing runs during the war. Saddam was going to be monitored even after the sanctions were lifted and the international community was not going to let him have a nuclear weapon.

 

[BlindBoo]

There is nothing wrong with what the General said....nothing at all...and it was not meant to hurt anyone that has served in that region

I served there and I was offended and so were thousands of other men and women that fought in that hell hole. You need to talk to service members that did serve there. The main reason for our disgust is the wholesale surrender of everything we fought for by our president. Like as if it meant nothing.

President Bush really pulled the rug out from underneath you guys huh?

 

[Rambunctious]

President Bush really pulled the rug out from underneath you guys huh?

No..... Mr. Obama did that.

 

[Publius1787]

President Bush really pulled the rug out from underneath you guys huh?

No..... Mr. Obama did that.

And you and I both know that our military understands this clearly.

 

[BlindBoo]

You are actually whining about a President who kept his campaign promise like it is a bad thing for candidates to keep promises. That is because your side never does. It seems weird to you that a candidate would. And you publicly whine about it like you are making a point other than what a fool you are

Obama never promised in his campaign that he would lose the war in Iraq. If he had you would have a valid point.

The war, was WON ALREADY, you guys claim BUSH WON THE WAR IN IRAQ, if Bush won the war, then it could never be lost by Obama....

Bush LOST this battle in Iraq within the FIRST 2 YEARS OF THE CONFLICT....when this war that was only suppose to take 3 months was not won decisively early on ...

It was the BIGGEST MISTAKE this country has ever made and will continue to hurt us for DECADES, if not a century.

Total Bullshit. There was no official surrender because there was no declared war. There was no agreement to end hostilities because of the nature of the threat. But the war was won and Obama gave it all away just to be able to pound his chest before an election.

There was an agreement to remove US troops from the cities in the summer of 2009 and the entire country by the end of 2011. Funny you don't remember President Bush announcing that agreement. (Duck you sucker!)