It is clear who ever we have leading our planning in Iraq has no clue. It is time to let our military leaders take control and win the battle.
ISIS Advancing
ISIS Advancing
Our plan is working DWS
- Thread starter davegolf
- Start date
Don't forget to send Dubya a "Thank you" card. . .
He's the dumb son of a bitch who had a hard on for invading Iraq in the first place. We broke it, we bought it.
I know, I know, it's really President Obama's fault. He's president now and it doesn't matter who started this whole shitfest.
Dubya should have never sobered up. At least if he had stayed drunk he may have eventually only gotten a handful of people killed by getting behind the wheel. Since he quit sucking the booze he's gotten tens of thousands killed.
He's the dumb son of a bitch who had a hard on for invading Iraq in the first place. We broke it, we bought it.
I know, I know, it's really President Obama's fault. He's president now and it doesn't matter who started this whole shitfest.
Dubya should have never sobered up. At least if he had stayed drunk he may have eventually only gotten a handful of people killed by getting behind the wheel. Since he quit sucking the booze he's gotten tens of thousands killed.
Re: Don't forget to send Dubya a "Thank you" card. . .
I think I remember young Bush saving 290 Iranian souls for Jesus during that war....
I think I remember young Bush saving 290 Iranian souls for Jesus during that war....
I'm sure the families of 4,000+ American soldiers. . .
Will be happy to hear about 290 Iranian souls being saved.
Will be happy to hear about 290 Iranian souls being saved.
Why don't you tell us how you REALLY feel?
Seriously, I like what you say and how you say it. Stay the course, my good man.
Seriously, I like what you say and how you say it. Stay the course, my good man.
So you want to reinvade Iraq?
I don't. The Middle East is a hot mess, and it's going to stay that way for a long time no matter what we do. Why don't we let Iraq's military leaders take control and win the battle? Why is it on us to win the battle? Bad stuff happens around the world every day, dave. That doesn't mean we have to step into a phone booth and come out wearing a cape.
I don't. The Middle East is a hot mess, and it's going to stay that way for a long time no matter what we do. Why don't we let Iraq's military leaders take control and win the battle? Why is it on us to win the battle? Bad stuff happens around the world every day, dave. That doesn't mean we have to step into a phone booth and come out wearing a cape.
Re: So you want to reinvade Iraq?
I want the military to take control of the decision making and use their best judgment to eliminate the threat. You can't fight the battle with one hand tied behind your back. I blame certain decision makers in this Administration for making the decisions that have brought us to this point. As far as Iraq's military leaders taking control I don't see that as an option as they appear powerless and without the leadership capability and authority to fight such a war.
I want the military to take control of the decision making and use their best judgment to eliminate the threat. You can't fight the battle with one hand tied behind your back. I blame certain decision makers in this Administration for making the decisions that have brought us to this point. As far as Iraq's military leaders taking control I don't see that as an option as they appear powerless and without the leadership capability and authority to fight such a war.
What do you mean by "brought us to this point"?
Be cause we in America are just fine. People in Syria and Iraq (and many other places) are killing each other. That's a tragedy. But they brought themselves to that point. There's no "us" in it, except to the extent that we insert ourselves into it. Why would we do that?
Be cause we in America are just fine. People in Syria and Iraq (and many other places) are killing each other. That's a tragedy. But they brought themselves to that point. There's no "us" in it, except to the extent that we insert ourselves into it. Why would we do that?
New Rule - You MUST Make At Least One Non-Stupid Post Per Decade
Your time is running out.
You like Saddam huh?
Bush change Iraq to this:
And you opposed it then and you oppose it now.
For politics.
Because you do NOT believe that all people are created equal, endowed by their Creator with certain unalienable rights, among them life, liberty and pursuit of happiness.
As far as you are concerned, freedom-seeking people elsewhere can go to Hell, and if radical Islamic terrorists pour into their country to make sure they cut off all purple fingers, you proudly stand with telling them "Tough. You ain't American. Die in private so we don't have to see it. When we said we'd help, that was a lie. We need a Democrat president worse than you need freedom. Suck it. Oh, and when we voted top send help, we didn't mean it - hell, we didn't even READ the damn intelligence reports. Because we needed to say "Bush bad" - that was more important. And now, what possible difference could it make?"
Despicable.
Your time is running out.
You like Saddam huh?
Bush change Iraq to this:
And you opposed it then and you oppose it now.
For politics.
Because you do NOT believe that all people are created equal, endowed by their Creator with certain unalienable rights, among them life, liberty and pursuit of happiness.
As far as you are concerned, freedom-seeking people elsewhere can go to Hell, and if radical Islamic terrorists pour into their country to make sure they cut off all purple fingers, you proudly stand with telling them "Tough. You ain't American. Die in private so we don't have to see it. When we said we'd help, that was a lie. We need a Democrat president worse than you need freedom. Suck it. Oh, and when we voted top send help, we didn't mean it - hell, we didn't even READ the damn intelligence reports. Because we needed to say "Bush bad" - that was more important. And now, what possible difference could it make?"
Despicable.
Re: What do you mean by "brought us to this point"?
OUR Inept foreign policy in the Middle East has brought us to this point. It started long before Obama but the buck stops there now and his leadership is a total failure. His apologetic policy towards sworn enemies does not bode well for peace in the region. They have no fear due to the foreign policy weaknesses of this Administration. Appeasement and bereavement!
OUR Inept foreign policy in the Middle East has brought us to this point. It started long before Obama but the buck stops there now and his leadership is a total failure. His apologetic policy towards sworn enemies does not bode well for peace in the region. They have no fear due to the foreign policy weaknesses of this Administration. Appeasement and bereavement!
Which military leaders should be in control?
Dave, according to your link senator John McCain sided with the Iraqi military leaders while referring to our Joint Chief of Staff chairman remarks as being a "gross mischaracterization."
The link stated the following,
At a Pentagon briefing Thursday, Gen. Martin Dempsey, chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff, played down the importance of Ramadi, saying that it is "not symbolic in any way" and that Baiji, a key location for Iraq's oil infrastructure, is "a more strategic target."
But Iraqi military officials have said that securing Anbar province, much of which is controlled by the Islamic State, is an essential step before any advance on Mosul, the group's base of power in Iraq.
That view was echoed Friday by Sen. John McCain (R-Ariz.), chairman of the Senate Armed Services Committee, who called Dempsey's remarks a "gross mischaracterization."
So who should be in control, the Iraqi military leaders or our own military advisers? Like it or not, the fight against Daesh must be primarily won by the Iraqi government's military. We can help to some degree with intelligence, air support, and offer our advise. However in the final analysis the battle against Daesh falls in the lap of the Iraqi government and its military.
We took control of the Anbar province during the surge with the help of the Sunni tribal leaders. Unfortunately the Sunnis have now turned against their own Shiite led government while giving comfort to Daesh. Our victory didn't last long as a good many experts predicted would happen with al-Maliki in charge.
Dave, according to your link senator John McCain sided with the Iraqi military leaders while referring to our Joint Chief of Staff chairman remarks as being a "gross mischaracterization."
The link stated the following,
At a Pentagon briefing Thursday, Gen. Martin Dempsey, chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff, played down the importance of Ramadi, saying that it is "not symbolic in any way" and that Baiji, a key location for Iraq's oil infrastructure, is "a more strategic target."
But Iraqi military officials have said that securing Anbar province, much of which is controlled by the Islamic State, is an essential step before any advance on Mosul, the group's base of power in Iraq.
That view was echoed Friday by Sen. John McCain (R-Ariz.), chairman of the Senate Armed Services Committee, who called Dempsey's remarks a "gross mischaracterization."
So who should be in control, the Iraqi military leaders or our own military advisers? Like it or not, the fight against Daesh must be primarily won by the Iraqi government's military. We can help to some degree with intelligence, air support, and offer our advise. However in the final analysis the battle against Daesh falls in the lap of the Iraqi government and its military.
We took control of the Anbar province during the surge with the help of the Sunni tribal leaders. Unfortunately the Sunnis have now turned against their own Shiite led government while giving comfort to Daesh. Our victory didn't last long as a good many experts predicted would happen with al-Maliki in charge.
Once again, dave . . .
"Us", dave. Look around you. Do you see anyone engaged in an existential battle with ISIS? Well, as I think about it, maybe you do, but in fact "we" are just fine, dave. It's the Syrians and the Iraqis who are butchering each other. And they didn't need our help or encouragement to do that, dave. It turns out that other people in faraway countries do bad things for reasons that have nothing to do with us. And no matter what policies we might adopt, dave, we can't prevent all the bad people from doing bad things that sometimes upset us. The last thing we ought to do, dave, is insert ourselves into a hopeless intractable mess that we couldn't sort out in any event.
I just can't believe that after eating a great big shitburger in Iraq, Republicans are lining up for another one. Sheesh!
"Us", dave. Look around you. Do you see anyone engaged in an existential battle with ISIS? Well, as I think about it, maybe you do, but in fact "we" are just fine, dave. It's the Syrians and the Iraqis who are butchering each other. And they didn't need our help or encouragement to do that, dave. It turns out that other people in faraway countries do bad things for reasons that have nothing to do with us. And no matter what policies we might adopt, dave, we can't prevent all the bad people from doing bad things that sometimes upset us. The last thing we ought to do, dave, is insert ourselves into a hopeless intractable mess that we couldn't sort out in any event.
I just can't believe that after eating a great big shitburger in Iraq, Republicans are lining up for another one. Sheesh!
Re: Once again, dave . . .
History has proven beyond a doubt that the theory of isolationism does not nor ever has worked. As much as we may not want to it imperative for world peace that we reenter the fray and stop/destroy ISIS in their tracks. If Bush/Obama would have listened to his military experts and not the friendly liberal opposition to the war we would not be in the situation we are today. The problem is the liberal definition of victory is turn tale and run because the price of war is to high. Nobody wants war but we are in one now, admit it and win it.
History has proven beyond a doubt that the theory of isolationism does not nor ever has worked. As much as we may not want to it imperative for world peace that we reenter the fray and stop/destroy ISIS in their tracks. If Bush/Obama would have listened to his military experts and not the friendly liberal opposition to the war we would not be in the situation we are today. The problem is the liberal definition of victory is turn tale and run because the price of war is to high. Nobody wants war but we are in one now, admit it and win it.
Huh?. . .
If Bush had listened to "liberal opposition" we wouldn't be in this situation at all. We would have never invaded Iraq.
If Bush had listened to "liberal opposition" we wouldn't be in this situation at all. We would have never invaded Iraq.
Re: Huh?. . .
That is true and things would be worse if Saddam would have been allowed to remain. As in the last years of the Vietnam war the liberal agenda took control of the battle field and when that happens we are doomed to fail. When we lose the will to fight we lose the battle.
That is true and things would be worse if Saddam would have been allowed to remain. As in the last years of the Vietnam war the liberal agenda took control of the battle field and when that happens we are doomed to fail. When we lose the will to fight we lose the battle.
Re: I think Dave is dreaming of "American Empire" like
I can't imagine what your insane comments prior to WWII would have been. Stay home stay out and let Hitler have his way it is not our business I suppose. Yes if we don't stop ISIS in their tracks it will come back to haunt us.
I can't imagine what your insane comments prior to WWII would have been. Stay home stay out and let Hitler have his way it is not our business I suppose. Yes if we don't stop ISIS in their tracks it will come back to haunt us.
Dave,. . .
You are so misguided I don't even know how to talk to you. I feel sorry for you. You've listened to way too much Limbaugh, Beck, Hannity, and Pat Robertson.
And what exactly was going to be worse about Hussein staying in power? I'm not advocating for the guy and he was a cruel piece of sh!t who is likely burning in hell as I type this and I'm fine with that. But the question remains, what was going to be worse? Did Iraq attack us? Everything I've ever read said Hussein kept Al Qaeda out of Iraq and wanted nothing to do with the radical groups, but we invaded anyways in an already volatile region. Again, did Iraq attack us? A little research shows that most of the highjackers were Saudi. And where are all those WMDs?
You are so misguided I don't even know how to talk to you. I feel sorry for you. You've listened to way too much Limbaugh, Beck, Hannity, and Pat Robertson.
And what exactly was going to be worse about Hussein staying in power? I'm not advocating for the guy and he was a cruel piece of sh!t who is likely burning in hell as I type this and I'm fine with that. But the question remains, what was going to be worse? Did Iraq attack us? Everything I've ever read said Hussein kept Al Qaeda out of Iraq and wanted nothing to do with the radical groups, but we invaded anyways in an already volatile region. Again, did Iraq attack us? A little research shows that most of the highjackers were Saudi. And where are all those WMDs?
So, you are saying that, in Vietnam,
we should've listened to Gen. Le May(?) and bombed them into the Stone Age, right?
You are blaming the "liberals" for the "loss of Vietnam." Yet, you are forgetting that, "before the liberal agenda took control of the battle field in the last years of the war" as you say, the likes of you had the war in your hand for nearly a decade. Remember that the American public, who were completely duped by the propaganda of the Eisenhower-Kennedy-Johnson administrations, were in overwhelming support for the war.
We had far superior army, navy, air force, bombs, tanks, warships, airplanes, food and other supplies, ....
We had far more manpower on the field as well, including Americans, Koreans, Australians, Thais, New Zealand, and yes, South Vietnamese. Viet Cong did not even have an air force nor navy!!! How many tanks did they have, one two, 10?
Why didn't we win?
This post was edited on 4/18 6:02 PM by meridian
we should've listened to Gen. Le May(?) and bombed them into the Stone Age, right?
You are blaming the "liberals" for the "loss of Vietnam." Yet, you are forgetting that, "before the liberal agenda took control of the battle field in the last years of the war" as you say, the likes of you had the war in your hand for nearly a decade. Remember that the American public, who were completely duped by the propaganda of the Eisenhower-Kennedy-Johnson administrations, were in overwhelming support for the war.
We had far superior army, navy, air force, bombs, tanks, warships, airplanes, food and other supplies, ....
We had far more manpower on the field as well, including Americans, Koreans, Australians, Thais, New Zealand, and yes, South Vietnamese. Viet Cong did not even have an air force nor navy!!! How many tanks did they have, one two, 10?
Why didn't we win?
This post was edited on 4/18 6:02 PM by meridian
Comparing ISIS to the Nazi regime?. . .
Hitler was the leader of a nation and that nation was, by and large, behind him. It was a centralized government with solid infrastructure and manufacturing capabilities. ISIS, while radical, cruel, and willing to behead anyone has nowhere near the capabilities Nazi Germany had. It's not even in the same ballpark Dave. Good God.
Hitler was the leader of a nation and that nation was, by and large, behind him. It was a centralized government with solid infrastructure and manufacturing capabilities. ISIS, while radical, cruel, and willing to behead anyone has nowhere near the capabilities Nazi Germany had. It's not even in the same ballpark Dave. Good God.
Re: Comparing ISIS to the Nazi regime?. . .
Both believe in mass genocide although ISIS has not reached the level experienced during WWII whether 1000s of lives or millions they need to be stopped. Hitler's atrocities grew in part because of the isolationist policies of the US at the time.
Both believe in mass genocide although ISIS has not reached the level experienced during WWII whether 1000s of lives or millions they need to be stopped. Hitler's atrocities grew in part because of the isolationist policies of the US at the time.
Re: So, you are saying that, in Vietnam,
You need to re-read history. The war in Vietnam was always controlled by politics not by tacticians. A lot of good men lost their lives to support reelections. I served from 67 through 70 and I saw first hand how the military was controlled by politicians at home and overseas. .Pubs were responsible for ending the war dems controlled the agenda from 1961 till 1969. As on many occasions you have your facts wrong.
You need to re-read history. The war in Vietnam was always controlled by politics not by tacticians. A lot of good men lost their lives to support reelections. I served from 67 through 70 and I saw first hand how the military was controlled by politicians at home and overseas. .Pubs were responsible for ending the war dems controlled the agenda from 1961 till 1969. As on many occasions you have your facts wrong.
Quit changing your story, Dave.
Two posts ago, you blamed "liberals" for chickening out and pulling us from Vietnam before we could win. Now you are crediting the GOP for pulling us out of the war.
Partisan hackery is all that is.
Two posts ago, you blamed "liberals" for chickening out and pulling us from Vietnam before we could win. Now you are crediting the GOP for pulling us out of the war.
Partisan hackery is all that is.
you sir, are very misguided
What battle is there for US troops to win? Are we supposed to occupy Iraq and now Syria for the next 50 years to try to pacify the shia/Sunni proxy war?
I can't believe in 2015 that anyone with any common sense believes the US military is going to ever solve a political problem in these regions.
Posted from Rivals Mobile
What battle is there for US troops to win? Are we supposed to occupy Iraq and now Syria for the next 50 years to try to pacify the shia/Sunni proxy war?
I can't believe in 2015 that anyone with any common sense believes the US military is going to ever solve a political problem in these regions.
Posted from Rivals Mobile
Re: Quit changing your story, Dave.
Liberals beyond any doubt forced Nixon out he was not a good leader or President.
Posted from Rivals Mobile
Liberals beyond any doubt forced Nixon out he was not a good leader or President.
Posted from Rivals Mobile
Make up your mind, Dave!
Was it the fault of the liberals or Nixon? I am not sure what you are referring to when you say "Liberals forced Nixon out."
Are you implying that it was the liberals who forced Nixon to break in Watergate or the liberals said that the break-in was illegal, although it was not illegal? Damn the bleeding heart liberal, Barry Goldwater!
Keep digging deeper, amigo!. I am dying to see where you end up.
Was it the fault of the liberals or Nixon? I am not sure what you are referring to when you say "Liberals forced Nixon out."
Are you implying that it was the liberals who forced Nixon to break in Watergate or the liberals said that the break-in was illegal, although it was not illegal? Damn the bleeding heart liberal, Barry Goldwater!
Keep digging deeper, amigo!. I am dying to see where you end up.
Re: Make up your mind, Dave!
You are against genocide and ethic cleansing as occurred during WWII but want to be laissez faire with the same type of genocide and ethic cleaning in the Middle East because it does not meet your "volume" standards. Amazes me you don't see the hypocrisy of that position.
You are against genocide and ethic cleansing as occurred during WWII but want to be laissez faire with the same type of genocide and ethic cleaning in the Middle East because it does not meet your "volume" standards. Amazes me you don't see the hypocrisy of that position.
Are you senile or something?
Who says ISIS should not be stopped? Where did you get the idea?
As far as I can see, Pres. Obama is doing everything in his power to stop them. Unfortunately, ISIS is not a nation of congregated population or army for that matter. Their forces are scattered throughout the Mideast. Are you implying that we should nuke the entire area, which, by the way, includes Israel?
If Obama decides to nuke that area, as you seem to imply, would you applaud him or come up with another excuse to criticize him? Based on your history, I would think the latter.
Who says ISIS should not be stopped? Where did you get the idea?
As far as I can see, Pres. Obama is doing everything in his power to stop them. Unfortunately, ISIS is not a nation of congregated population or army for that matter. Their forces are scattered throughout the Mideast. Are you implying that we should nuke the entire area, which, by the way, includes Israel?
If Obama decides to nuke that area, as you seem to imply, would you applaud him or come up with another excuse to criticize him? Based on your history, I would think the latter.
Re: Are you senile or something?
What world do you live in. He is doing some perfunctory air strikes and nothing on the ground worth noting. All the experts agree they cannot be stopped with this course of action I have seen no one and I mean no one suggesting any "nuclear" attack. Back to name calling and I am done.
What world do you live in. He is doing some perfunctory air strikes and nothing on the ground worth noting. All the experts agree they cannot be stopped with this course of action I have seen no one and I mean no one suggesting any "nuclear" attack. Back to name calling and I am done.
"[W]e would not be in the situation we are today"
Once again, dave, "we" aren't in a "situation". The Iraqis and the Syrians are in quite a "situation", but "we" aren't. The last thing we should do is "reenter the fray."
"The problem is the liberal definition of victory is turn tale [sic] and run because the price of war is to [sic] high."
That's tough talk from a guy commanding a keyboard. You guys make a lot of noise about supporting the troops -- while fulminating to send them off on fool's errands that will get them killed. The brave Americans who serve in the armed forces put their lives on the line for us. The least we civilians can do is make very sure that we don't stupidly waste their lives based on bumper stickers. You are absolutely not holding up your end here.
Once again, dave, "we" aren't in a "situation". The Iraqis and the Syrians are in quite a "situation", but "we" aren't. The last thing we should do is "reenter the fray."
"The problem is the liberal definition of victory is turn tale [sic] and run because the price of war is to [sic] high."
That's tough talk from a guy commanding a keyboard. You guys make a lot of noise about supporting the troops -- while fulminating to send them off on fool's errands that will get them killed. The brave Americans who serve in the armed forces put their lives on the line for us. The least we civilians can do is make very sure that we don't stupidly waste their lives based on bumper stickers. You are absolutely not holding up your end here.
Name-calling?
I guess you ought to know; nobody does better job than you.
So, you think we should send ground troops to fight ISIS. Where are they? Do you want us to repeat the failure of Vietnam?
Here's a funny feeling I have. If, for whatever reason, Obama commits our ground troops to the land of ISIS, wherever that is, and fail to deliver the decisive victory within a year, which is a realistic scenario, I bet my farm that the likes of Dave will be the first ones demanding the president's head.
Before I quit this childish argument, I will give you a friendly advice. Get rid of the Santayana's quote. You have put it there for as long as I can remember. Apparently, you have no intention of following his advice. Why waste the space?
I guess you ought to know; nobody does better job than you.
So, you think we should send ground troops to fight ISIS. Where are they? Do you want us to repeat the failure of Vietnam?
Here's a funny feeling I have. If, for whatever reason, Obama commits our ground troops to the land of ISIS, wherever that is, and fail to deliver the decisive victory within a year, which is a realistic scenario, I bet my farm that the likes of Dave will be the first ones demanding the president's head.
Before I quit this childish argument, I will give you a friendly advice. Get rid of the Santayana's quote. You have put it there for as long as I can remember. Apparently, you have no intention of following his advice. Why waste the space?
