Obama's wars of aggression..... why?

[Sallow]

"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 weapons of mass destruction program."
President Clinton, Feb. 17, 1998

There's a big difference between Saber Rattling and actual invasion/conquering/occupation.

Very big.

 

[kwc57]

Serious,, why with all going on, does Obama fixate on horseshit like DADT, START, Cap and Tax, etc.?

Is he really this clueless? Meantime Iran is going nucular, N. Korea is as well.. and he has us bogged down in Iraq and Afghanistan?

I think it has something to do with being President of the UNITED STATES and not Iran or North Korea.......but I could be wrong.

 

[(R)IGHTeous 1]

With the looming threats in Iran, N. Korea, Pakistan, etc., why does Obama keep us bogged down in two wars of aggression in Iraq and Afghanistan? When will he get his eye back on the ball?

WHEN?

If by "eye on the ball" you mean Afghanistan .. well that ball don't bounce too well these days. It is failed and failing.

Why Obama wars of aggression?

Because he's a corporatist.

At this stage of all that is known that should be no surprise to anyone. Nor should it not be a surprise that Obama is the same warmonger Bush was .. only in a carmel, better tasting package. This from the Nobel Prize winner for "Peace."

Expect him to only get worse as the morons from the right and the corporations that profit from war push his weak ass towards Iran.

If you voted for him because you thought he stood for peace and against needless wars .. please turn in your voters registration card at the desk.

Spoken like someone who wants our troops to fail. Something cannot also be failing, if it's already failed, moron.

 

[ABikerSailor]

"One way or the other, we are determined to deny Iraq the capacity to develop weapons of mass destruction and the missiles to deliver them.
That is our bottom line."
President Clinton, Feb. 4, 1998

You're right. Clinton didn't let them get any WMD's.

Neither did Bush Jr., but he stated they were there, when in fact, Saddam had none. The only thing he had was gas weapons, but he used them all up on the Kurds.

 

[(R)IGHTeous 1]

"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 weapons of mass destruction program."
President Clinton, Feb. 17, 1998

There's a big difference between Saber Rattling and actual invasion/conquering/occupation.

Very big.

Kill your smoke and mirrors already.

Slick Willy had Iraq BOMBED just to distract from his infidelity and lies, and he aint go to the useless U.N. for permission like GWB did either.

 

[Soggy in NOLA]

"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 weapons of mass destruction program."
President Clinton, Feb. 17, 1998

There's a big difference between Saber Rattling and actual invasion/conquering/occupation.

Very big.

So, then you support saber rattling with no intention of backing it up? Or, did the Clinton admin just lack th balls to do what they professed needed to be done?

Glad to know how we're heading into the START treaty.

 

[Soggy in NOLA]

Serious,, why with all going on, does Obama fixate on horseshit like DADT, START, Cap and Tax, etc.?

Is he really this clueless? Meantime Iran is going nucular, N. Korea is as well.. and he has us bogged down in Iraq and Afghanistan?

I think it has something to do with being President of the UNITED STATES and not Iran or North Korea.......but I could be wrong.

You are, you are dead wrong.

 

[loosecannon]

With the looming threats in Iran, N. Korea, Pakistan, etc., why does Obama keep us bogged down in two wars of aggression in Iraq and Afghanistan? When will he get his eye back on the ball?

WHEN?

DAMNED good questions! Altho Iran doesn't threaten US. NK doesn't really threaten us, and Pakistan only threatens us if AQ makes a base of their back country to launch attacks from, or makes off with Paki nukes.

Why aren't we disarming Pakistan? Israel?

 

[rightwinger]

No doubt Iraq was a totally unnecessary waste of 4000 soldiers and 100,000 Iraqis, the sooner we can pull out the better

I am getting frustrated with Afghanistan as we near a ten year occupation. It is a good jumping off place to attack Taliban and AlQaida strongholds on the Afghan/Pakistan border

 

[(R)IGHTeous 1]

No doubt Iraq was a totally unnecessary waste of 4000 soldiers and 100,000 Iraqis, the sooner we can pull out the better

I am getting frustrated with Afghanistan as we near a ten year occupation. It is a good jumping off place to attack Taliban and AlQaida strongholds on the Afghan/Pakistan border

You let us know when you get tired of shittin on our troops, and their many sacrifices there, mmm k?

 

[Sallow]

"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 weapons of mass destruction program."
President Clinton, Feb. 17, 1998

There's a big difference between Saber Rattling and actual invasion/conquering/occupation.

Very big.

So, then you support saber rattling with no intention of backing it up? Or, did the Clinton admin just lack th balls to do what they professed needed to be done?

Glad to know how we're heading into the START treaty.

Iraq's been a useful pawn/whipping boy for years (Decades?). Anyone that's been followinng this "saga" with even the slightest bit of interest knows this. President Bush completely screwed the pooch on this one..and did so, royally.

 

[rightwinger]

No doubt Iraq was a totally unnecessary waste of 4000 soldiers and 100,000 Iraqis, the sooner we can pull out the better

I am getting frustrated with Afghanistan as we near a ten year occupation. It is a good jumping off place to attack Taliban and AlQaida strongholds on the Afghan/Pakistan border

You let us know when you get tired of shittin on our troops, and their many sacrifices there, mmm k?

Sending an inadequate number of troops to conquer and control Iraq led to the unnecessary death of countless soldiers as the insurgency was allowed to take hold

Rumsfeld and Bush were warned they were taking Iraq lightly and misunderstood the political and religious rivalries. Their poor planning proved to be a disaster

I have done more for our soldiers than you ever will man-child

 

[BlackAsCoal]

With the looming threats in Iran, N. Korea, Pakistan, etc., why does Obama keep us bogged down in two wars of aggression in Iraq and Afghanistan? When will he get his eye back on the ball?

WHEN?

If by "eye on the ball" you mean Afghanistan .. well that ball don't bounce too well these days. It is failed and failing.

Why Obama wars of aggression?

Because he's a corporatist.

At this stage of all that is known that should be no surprise to anyone. Nor should it not be a surprise that Obama is the same warmonger Bush was .. only in a carmel, better tasting package. This from the Nobel Prize winner for "Peace."

Expect him to only get worse as the morons from the right and the corporations that profit from war push his weak ass towards Iran.

If you voted for him because you thought he stood for peace and against needless wars .. please turn in your voters registration card at the desk.

Spoken like someone who wants our troops to fail. Something cannot also be failing, if it's already failed, moron.

**** you asswipe.

I have a daughter in the military .. and caring about them means not sending them off to die and get blown apart in needless wars.

Are you in the military knucklehead?

It is failed and failing even worse .. like you .. dumb and dumber all at the same time.

 

[Soggy in NOLA]

If by "eye on the ball" you mean Afghanistan .. well that ball don't bounce too well these days. It is failed and failing.

Why Obama wars of aggression?

Because he's a corporatist.

At this stage of all that is known that should be no surprise to anyone. Nor should it not be a surprise that Obama is the same warmonger Bush was .. only in a carmel, better tasting package. This from the Nobel Prize winner for "Peace."

Expect him to only get worse as the morons from the right and the corporations that profit from war push his weak ass towards Iran.

If you voted for him because you thought he stood for peace and against needless wars .. please turn in your voters registration card at the desk.

Spoken like someone who wants our troops to fail. Something cannot also be failing, if it's already failed, moron.

**** you asswipe.

I have a daughter in the military .. and caring about them means not sending them off to die and get blown apart in needless wars.

Are you in the military knucklehead?

It is failed and failing even worse .. like you .. dumb and dumber all at the same time.

Oh my.....

 

[(R)IGHTeous 1]

rightwinger wrote:

Sending an inadequate number of troops to conquer and control Iraq led to the unnecessary death of countless soldiers as the insurgency was allowed to take hold

Iraq's LIBERATION went beautifully. There was an honest tactical error made, it was corrected by the surge, GWB obviously made up for that mistake. The surge WON US that war. Not that a BDS sheep like yourself will ever admit this truth tho.

I have done more for our soldiers than you ever will man-child

You aint do shit. You're fake, you're screen name's fake, you reek of EPIC FAKE.

You're just mad cuz I'm likely 1 of the 1st to call you out.

 

[(R)IGHTeous 1]

Spoken like someone who wants our troops to fail. Something cannot also be failing, if it's already failed, moron.

**** you asswipe.

I have a daughter in the military .. and caring about them means not sending them off to die and get blown apart in needless wars.

Are you in the military knucklehead?

It is failed and failing even worse .. like you .. dumb and dumber all at the same time.

Oh my.....

I know. Looks like my pwnage hit a nerve.

I call BS, that dumb **** doesn't have shit anywhere. I was Navy, and still know alotta people in ALL branches, NONE OF WHOM BELIEVE WE'RE FAILING.

That clown's a bore....

 

[BlackAsCoal]

rightwinger wrote:

Sending an inadequate number of troops to conquer and control Iraq led to the unnecessary death of countless soldiers as the insurgency was allowed to take hold

Iraq's LIBERATION went beautifully. There was an honest tactical error made, it was corrected by the surge, GWB obviously made up for that mistake. The surge WON US that war. Not that a BDS sheep like yourself will ever admit this truth tho.

I have done more for our soldiers than you ever will man-child

You aint do shit. You're fake, you're screen name's fake, you reek of EPIC FAKE.

You're just mad cuz I'm likely 1 of the 1st to call you out.

Everybody here knows the satire of rightwingers screenname. You're just the last one too dumb to figure it out .. and dumb enough to think you among the first when you finally smell the coffee.

Exactly WHAT is it you have done for the troops?

Asked before .. are you in the military?

Ever been in the military?

 

[rightwinger]

rightwinger wrote:

Sending an inadequate number of troops to conquer and control Iraq led to the unnecessary death of countless soldiers as the insurgency was allowed to take hold

Iraq's LIBERATION went beautifully. There was an honest tactical error made, it was corrected by the surge, GWB obviously made up for that mistake. The surge WON US that war. Not that a BDS sheep like yourself will ever admit this truth tho.

I have done more for our soldiers than you ever will man-child

You aint do shit. You're fake, you're screen name's fake, you reek of EPIC FAKE.

You're just mad cuz I'm likely 1 of the 1st to call you out.

Gen Shinseki (Chief of Staff for the Army) warned before the invasion that well in excess of 100,000 soldiers would be needed to invade and control the territory and that it would be years before we could pull out

Rumsfeld laughed and fired him and sent 70,000 troops who he expected to be treated as liberators. That "honest tactical error" resulted in 4000 deaths as the insurgency took hold

 

[kwc57]

Serious,, why with all going on, does Obama fixate on horseshit like DADT, START, Cap and Tax, etc.?

Is he really this clueless? Meantime Iran is going nucular, N. Korea is as well.. and he has us bogged down in Iraq and Afghanistan?

I think it has something to do with being President of the UNITED STATES and not Iran or North Korea.......but I could be wrong.

You are, you are dead wrong.

So, to set the record straight, you are in favor of getting American youth killed for the purpose of nation building? How very liberal of you.

 

[rightwinger]

Eric Shinseki - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Shinseki publicly clashed with Secretary of Defense Donald Rumsfeld during the planning of the war in Iraq over how many troops the U.S. would need to keep in Iraq for the postwar occupation of that country. As Army Chief of Staff, General Shinseki testified to the U.S. Senate Armed Services Committee that "something in the order of several hundred thousand soldiers" would probably be required for postwar Iraq. This was an estimate far higher than the figure being proposed by Secretary Rumsfeld in his invasion plan, and it was rejected in strong language by both Rumsfeld and his Deputy Secretary of Defense, Paul Wolfowitz, who was another chief planner of the invasion and occupation.From then on, Shinseki's influence on the Joint Chiefs of Staff reportedly waned