sometimes I get this sense of deja vu....

callmeslick · Post by **callmeslick** » Wed Jun 18, 2014 10:40 am

Will Robinson wrote:
callmeslick wrote:as pointed out, we haven't, at the end of the day, 'won' in any combat situations. You can't limit it to a good day or week on the battlefield. Combat situations are larger-scale than that.

Bottom line, not one of you has shown or even suggested how:
1. Iraq was ever a 'success' after we invaded
I think the Obama administration has already taken credit for the success.

lie #1 for the day. They never did claim any success except for fulfilling the promise to leave Iraq quickly.

the smartest guy in the room wrote:“I am very optimistic about Iraq.
I think it’s gonna be one of the great achievements of this administration. You’re gonna see 90,000 American troops come marchin’ home by the end of the summer.
You’re gonna see a stable government in Iraq that is actually movin’ toward a representative government.
I’ve been there 17 times now. I go about every two months, three months.
I know every one of the major players in all the segments of that society.
It’s impressed me. I’ve been impressed, how they have been deciding to use the political process, rather than guns, to settle their differences.”

[/quote]
buncha Biden quotes about the success in LEAVING, along with some hopeful stuff, essentially bones tossed to the Iraqis. I'm sure part of the motivation was to prevent the immediate issue that we'll be seeing now: Tens of thousands of Iraq war vets wondering why their nation sent them there.

callmeslick · Post by **callmeslick** » Wed Jun 18, 2014 10:46 am

So, now that we have our daily dose of stupid Obama-hate out of the way, I'll ask what I've asked elsewhere of the 'loyal' opposition:

1. What do YOU think we should do with Iraq now(not a question that requires any comment on what has been done prior)?
2. What do you think 180,000 US troops really accomplished over the 2003-2009 timeframe?
3. What should be the US policy towards the Middle East region going forward. In other words, going past merely Iraq, and dealing with
sectarian/tribal/religious factions from Lebanon, Syria, Iraq, Iran and the Arabian peninsula.

interesting side note--my next door neighbors were over in Dubai, the husband on a 2-3 year assignment for DuPont in the region. The wife was
planning on spending time with grandparents and other family in Lebanon. They departed last October. It seems she has returned to the US last week and doesn't appear to be returning to the land of her parent's birth.......

Will Robinson · Post by **Will Robinson** » Wed Jun 18, 2014 11:48 am

callmeslick wrote:...
buncha Biden quotes about the success in LEAVING, along with some hopeful stuff, essentially bones tossed to the Iraqis. I'm sure part of the motivation was to prevent the immediate issue that we'll be seeing now: Tens of thousands of Iraq war vets wondering why their nation sent them there.

So Biden, spokesman for Obama and member of the administration, tells a journalist a bunch of lies because he thinks it will placate the Iraqi's, somehow causing them to stop what we are seeing now and to protect the vets who are witness to what he thinks those lies were going to prevent?
Ok.

callmeslick wrote:1. What do YOU think we should do with Iraq now(not a question that requires any comment on what has been done prior)?

Convenient, your question includes the current state of affairs but excludes commentary on what we should have done during that period when sectarian violence was down 95% a couple years ago until now when it has escalated to possible complete takeover by a couple of warring religious nutbag factions.
You know...all that time period when your guy Obama was in charge, ignoring all the warnings and instead telegraphing the exit strategy...

2. What do you think 180,000 US troops really accomplished over the 2003-2009 timeframe?

The answer to that today is vastly different than it would be if that period we are not supposed to talk about had been managed differently.

3. What should be the US policy towards the Middle East region going forward. In other words, going past merely Iraq, and dealing with
sectarian/tribal/religious factions from Lebanon, Syria, Iraq, Iran and the Arabian peninsula.

'What difference does it make'?!?

Your guy isn't listening to anything except short term domestic political advice.
We have to wait for him to leave the White House before we can have any kind of substantive foreign policy.

interesting side note--my next door neighbors were over in Dubai, the husband on a 2-3 year assignment for DuPont in the region. The wife was
planning on spending time with grandparents and other family in Lebanon. They departed last October. It seems she has returned to the US last week and doesn't appear to be returning to the land of her parent's birth.......

Tell it to Obama and Hillary, they are the ones who broke those eggs. That's your guy's omelette.

Will Robinson · Post by **Will Robinson** » Wed Jun 18, 2014 12:01 pm

It is no wonder the current administration conducts itself with such arrogance and impunity with so many like slick who preface any discussion with the notion that any criticism of Obama is just the work of 'haters and bigots' so as to provide cover for him .

callmeslick · Post by **callmeslick** » Wed Jun 18, 2014 12:20 pm

Will Robinson wrote:
Convenient, your question includes the current state of affairs but excludes commentary on what we should have done during that period when sectarian violence was down 95% a couple years ago until now when it has escalated to possible complete takeover by a couple of warring religious nutbag factions.
You know...all that time period when your guy Obama was in charge, ignoring all the warnings and instead telegraphing the exit strategy...

he was voted in on the promise to leave ASAP. He did. Sectarian violence was down at the cost to the US of $150 billion per annum. Are you suggesting that we should have continued at that pace, for how long?

2. What do you think 180,000 US troops really accomplished over the 2003-2009 timeframe?
The answer to that today is vastly different than it would be if that period we are not supposed to talk about had been managed differently.

still trying to pin blame on Obama for doing what his election DEMANDED that he do? Interesting, I'm still waiting for your assessment of what the people of the US wish to do now, which is, I suspect, stay the hell away from Iraq.

3. What should be the US policy towards the Middle East region going forward. In other words, going past merely Iraq, and dealing with
sectarian/tribal/religious factions from Lebanon, Syria, Iraq, Iran and the Arabian peninsula.
'What difference does it make'?!?

Your guy isn't listening to anything except short term domestic political advice.
We have to wait for him to leave the White House before we can have any kind of substantive foreign policy.

so, there we have it, folks......as, I suspect, many of you knew: Will has exactly NOTHING to offer except whines about Obama. In other words, exactly what we have been offered for years by those to the right, on a host of subjects. NOTHING is not a plan. WHINING is not a plan. Either bring a plan up for discussion, a plan for the future, or do us a favor and quit the daily whining.

interesting side note--my next door neighbors were over in Dubai, the husband on a 2-3 year assignment for DuPont in the region. The wife was
planning on spending time with grandparents and other family in Lebanon. They departed last October. It seems she has returned to the US last week and doesn't appear to be returning to the land of her parent's birth.......
Tell it to Obama and Hillary, they are the ones who broke those eggs. That's your guy's omelette.

have some cheese with that whine, please, Will.......

I repeat, WHINING and FINGERPOINTING doesn't help anyone, it isn't a plan to be discussed. It's simply childish, stupid behavior. As we've come to expect.......nothing more, nothing less.

sigma · Post by **sigma** » Wed Jun 18, 2014 1:15 pm

As far as I can see, now gets even more interesting situation. Methods that U.S. earlier quite successfully used to relieve other countries (namely, funding the opposition to foment civil wars, or direct and unlawful use of lethal weapons with the help of NATO forces to inflate military conflicts) it is already causing a faint but distinct righteous rebellion by other members of the international community. And when the UN and the European Union have clearly seen that the genocide of the Ukrainian people to blame the U.S., they immediately pretended that it did not concern them.
See, today we see that neo-fascist government of Ukraine arranged genocide of civilians Ukraine on American money, but in fact, neither the U.S. nor Russia can not stop it, because the use of peacekeeping troops from both sides will be perceived as an act of aggression. Same in Iraq now. Monstrous and sad situation

flip · Post by **flip** » Wed Jun 18, 2014 1:50 pm

The first Gulf War was a benefit to the Saudi's, their investors and their 'consultants.'

flip · Post by **flip** » Wed Jun 18, 2014 2:12 pm

I would say follow the money

but of course that's not the world we live in.

So many pots, so few spoons

And before any of you chickenheads run off hollering "conspircy,conspircy", pull your head out your butt and try to connect the dots for yourself for once.

Will Robinson · Post by **Will Robinson** » Wed Jun 18, 2014 2:19 pm

The American people didn't want Obamacare but he didn't stop. So don't tell me he couldn't lead instead of follow when it came time to manage the Iraq situation. He has gone against the will of the people when he wanted to.

You are making a really lame excuse for him by suggesting he had no choice in the matter.

My plan for dealing with the mess? Get a Commander in Chief into the White House as soon as possible.
We have been without one for far too long. Instead we have some guy in there who keeps telling us he never heard about any of these troubles until the story came up in the news.
He might as well be the whitehouse historian if all he can do is react after the fact....

callmeslick · Post by **callmeslick** » Wed Jun 18, 2014 3:18 pm

Will Robinson wrote:whine, whine, Obama, whine, whine, Obama, whine whine....

OK we get it, you have nothing. No sense beating it to death, Will.

Spidey · Post by **Spidey** » Wed Jun 18, 2014 3:25 pm

callmeslick wrote:as pointed out, we haven't, at the end of the day, 'won' in any combat situations. You can't limit it to a good day or week on the battlefield. Combat situations are larger-scale than that.

Oh and not only did we win the first Gulf war, we also won the Iraq war as well. So that’s at least two. (and I won’t squabble about never declaring war, in every conflict since WW2)

What’s going on there now is a different war, with a different government fighting a different enemy.

But we won that war, and we won it decisively…we destroyed the Iraqi military and overthrew the government. We may well lose the peace, so to speak…but that is a different story.

But, I’m sure some of you can redefine the definition of war, to suit your personal political beliefs.

callmeslick · Post by **callmeslick** » Wed Jun 18, 2014 3:51 pm

Spidey wrote:
callmeslick wrote:as pointed out, we haven't, at the end of the day, 'won' in any combat situations. You can't limit it to a good day or week on the battlefield. Combat situations are larger-scale than that.
Oh and not only did we win the first Gulf war, we also won the Iraq war as well. So that’s at least two. (and I won’t squabble about never declaring war, in every conflict since WW2)

winning for you, apparently, is VERY different than for me. I sort of require a positive outcome after the 'war' is over. Slaughtering other people and making out situation, long-term, WORSE is not 'winning' a goddamn thing.

Spidey · Post by **Spidey** » Wed Jun 18, 2014 4:07 pm

Winning a war is defeating the enemy…you may need more, but no more is needed for a military victory. (you are mixing political victory and military victory)

More may be needed to justify the war in the first place…but has no bearing on who wins the conflict.

Will Robinson · Post by **Will Robinson** » Wed Jun 18, 2014 5:58 pm

slick, if you wanted a positive outcome from invading Iraq and toppling Saddam you would have to do what is done everywhere there has been a positive outcome after a war was won. Stick around and shape the future.

Or, if you are only interested in some small minded political victory back home, then turn your back on all the winning and own the results of your walking out.

vision · Post by **vision** » Wed Jun 18, 2014 7:19 pm

Spidey wrote:Winning a war is defeating the enemy…

We beat terrorism! Thanks Obama!

Spidey · Post by **Spidey** » Wed Jun 18, 2014 9:08 pm

What "we"...pacifist?

................................

What amazes me…is that anyone believes that a positive outcome can come from any war, something positive may come from the efforts made after a war is over, but nothing good can ever come from war. War produces only death, destruction and misery.

Sounds like stating the obvious right…well the point is…you can’t use a metric like a war must produce positive results to be “won”.

callmeslick · Post by **callmeslick** » Thu Jun 19, 2014 7:48 am

Spidey wrote:Winning a war is defeating the enemy…you may need more, but no more is needed for a military victory. (you are mixing political victory and military victory)

so a multi-trillion dollar military beating the bejeepers out of a third-rate nation is 'winning' for you? Pathetic.

Will Robinson · Post by **Will Robinson** » Thu Jun 19, 2014 8:46 am

callmeslick wrote:
Spidey wrote:Winning a war is defeating the enemy…you may need more, but no more is needed for a military victory. (you are mixing political victory and military victory)
so a multi-trillion dollar military beating the bejeepers out of a third-rate nation is 'winning' for you? Pathetic.

Beating the opposing force into the dirt and executing the commander and occupying the country at will is definitely a win by any military standard. As you know.

The definition of 'winning' you are choosing to insert into the conversation is a bizzare one constructed to excuse the person who was in charge after the win who immediately retreated from the scene against all military and intelligence advisors. Not just previous administration advice but against his own advisors in his intelligence departments and military.

You are free to be that wrong and partisan but it is painfully obvious that is what you are doing. Just as your motive for mocking anyone who points out these things is.

You are the spoiled child sticking his fingers in his ears chanting loudly 'I can't hear you!!!'.
But the truth must bother you deep down inside because of the way you are being so foolish in your attempt to derail the conversation or troll the forums.

vision · Post by **vision** » Thu Jun 19, 2014 12:05 pm

Will Robinson wrote: The definition of 'winning' you are choosing to insert into the conversation is a bizzare one constructed to excuse the person who was in charge after the win who immediately retreated from the scene against all military and intelligence advisors.

So basically, screw what the vast majority of Americans want. I'll remember your position next time you are complaining about Obama not consulting Congress or the people. You don't care what happens as long as you can spin it to hate the black dude.

Krom · Post by **Krom** » Thu Jun 19, 2014 12:27 pm

One thing you fail to realize Will is that even if we did stay there, it wouldn't accomplish anything worthwhile. That is unless you count piling up casualties and costs while creating new terrorists every day worthwhile. And why it wouldn't accomplish anything worthwhile? It is really simple, the occupation and the war was fought against a local military/terrorists/insurgents/etc, but the war was against their ideology which we specifically avoided firing a single shot against (being a nation that practices freedom of religion and all). We were shooting at the wrong target the whole time while deliberately avoiding the real one. You can trash as many militants and terrorists and dictators as you like, but it won't change the ideology that creates them.

Some of you are Christians right? Just imagine for a minute, if you lived in a country where everyone was so strongly Christian that you sometimes killed each other over different interpretations of a few verses from the Bible. Now try to imagine what some external force attacking your country would have to do to you and your country in order to make you and everyone else there give up being Christian.

The last time we fought against an ideology and won, we literally transformed the landscape of a nation into Hell on Earth, brought every last person there face to face with a meaningless death and extinction, and finally forced their living god to surrender unconditionally. Think about that for a second before you suggest sending in a force on some pansy ass peacekeeping job to protect a bunch of people who's religion wants us all dead.

callmeslick · Post by **callmeslick** » Thu Jun 19, 2014 12:32 pm

exactly, Vision. It's amazing that such a transparent level of hypocrisy can be put forth with so few questioning it. We didn't WIN a ★■◆●ing thing in Iraq.....nothing! We got rid of a despot, killed a bunch of civilians, created a vacuum for Sunni insurgents to develop in(where there previously had been none), and destroyed the infrastructure(Baghdad never got back to more than 4 hours electricity per day except for the 'green zone'). This is Will's 'win'. Really, Will? Getting rid of Saddam was THAT important? I know I was saying in 2003, as were a lot of others, that this was what you got. Keeping US troops there made a couple of cities less violent, but still, there wasn't ONE DAY in which bombs weren't going off. Obama didn't abandon a win, he did what the US electorate DEMANDED, he got out of a losing, stupid involvement in a region no one cares about.

But, then again, it's so easy to blame it on the black guy, and put forth ZERO by way of a game plan. As always.

callmeslick · Post by **callmeslick** » Thu Jun 19, 2014 1:00 pm

well put, Charles, well put:
http://www.nytimes.com/2014/06/19/opini ... 09000&_r=0

Spidey · Post by **Spidey** » Thu Jun 19, 2014 2:03 pm

Well since some of you are unwilling to differentiate the military conflict from the political aspects, how’s this….

We Won!

We beat the crap out of a dictator that was gassing the Kurds (and other enemies) destroyed his armed forces…and now two of the sects that hate us the most are going to start killing each other, and a country that has no right to exist will no longer exist.

That’s a win, if I ever heard one.

Lol no, Obama didn’t abandon a win…he insured it.

/cynicism

Tunnelcat · Post by **Tunnelcat** » Thu Jun 19, 2014 2:26 pm

Spidey wrote:Well since some of you are unwilling to differentiate the military conflict from the political aspects, how’s this….

We Won!

We beat the crap out of a dictator that was gassing the Kurds (and other enemies) destroyed his armed forces…and now two of the sects that hate us the most are going to start killing each other, and a country that has no right to exist will no longer exist.

That’s a win, if I ever heard one.

Lol no, Obama didn’t abandon a win…he insured it.

/cynicism

Cynicism.

There was never a "win". There was only a pause, that Bush grandstanded on like the arrogant twit he is. Then, inevitably, the merde hit the fan when old hostilities crawled out of the woodwork, which could have easily been foreseen by anyone with half an ounce of brains and a little history knowledge about that area. Bush, and Cheney, must have slept through that part of their schooling.

Will Robinson · Post by **Will Robinson** » Thu Jun 19, 2014 8:13 pm

vision wrote:
Will Robinson wrote: The definition of 'winning' you are choosing to insert into the conversation is a bizzare one constructed to excuse the person who was in charge after the win who immediately retreated from the scene against all military and intelligence advisors.
So basically, screw what the vast majority of Americans want. I'll remember your position next time you are complaining about Obama not consulting Congress or the people. You don't care what happens as long as you can spin it to hate the black dude.

So should Obama have abandoned Obamacare since the majority of Americans opposed it?

And why do you try to play the race card? Did anyone say anything about race? Such a weak tactic. I guess its all you have.

Will Robinson · Post by **Will Robinson** » Thu Jun 19, 2014 8:21 pm

We propped up Saddam and he served to keep Iran in check. He became our whipping boy when we decided to go into the region due to 9/11.

When we disrupted that status quo, regardless of if it was a good thing or not the results of leaving the way Obama did without propping up another 'Saddam' created what we have now.
Everyone, even slicks daddy knew it.

So why purposely take a bad situation and make it much much worse?

And if it was so principled to pull out at all costs why are we now going back?!?

If 'no one cares about that region' as slick proclaims why are we going back now to have an effect one way or the other?

Not because of principles or morals or ethics. Because of the same thing that motivated the rapid, Ill-conceived retreat, domestic politics. Yay team Obama!

callmeslick · Post by **callmeslick** » Fri Jun 20, 2014 7:54 am

Will Robinson wrote:We propped up Saddam and he served to keep Iran in check. He became our whipping boy when we decided to go into the region due to 9/11.

When we disrupted that status quo, regardless of if it was a good thing or not the results of leaving the way Obama did without propping up another 'Saddam' created what we have now.
Everyone, even slicks daddy knew it.

So why purposely take a bad situation and make it much much worse?

because he would have been facing a public revolt had he not exited Iraq. There is now, nor was there then, ANY good reason to stay. As Obama pointed out yesterday, we could not afford to continue risking thousands of US lives, and spend hundreds of billions of dollars in Iraq, trying to stave off the inevitable. What is so hard for you to grasp about that.

And if it was so principled to pull out at all costs why are we now going back?!?

we aren't going back....that was made clear by Obama yesterday. Those few hundred he sent are likely securing the Embassy, prepping to evacuate staff, and sending reports on the real status on the ground. Yeah, they might provide some intell and tactical support to the Iraqi army, but likely very little of that, given that Obama also said we were NOT going to get involved with only one religious/ethnic side.

If 'no one cares about that region' as slick proclaims why are we going back now to have an effect one way or the other?

what part of 'we aren't going to go back in with military force' didn't you understand when Obama said it 3 times in the past days?

Not because of principles or morals or ethics. Because of the same thing that motivated the rapid, Ill-conceived retreat, domestic politics. Yay team Obama!

actually, ALL Americans should both thank Obama for getting us out, and thank their stars that he has the sense to weigh actions. He kept us out of Syria(against GOP urging), he kept a low profile in the Ukraine(against GOP urging) and he will, I trust, do likewise in Iraq. The sort of sad part is that he will get identified, in the short term, with the very reality he presents to the public so well. That is, the fact that the US days as policeman of the world are over. Likely forever over. We cannot afford it, it serves us badly, no one in the world wishes that. Obama gets that....always has. Biden is more of an old-school guy, but is smart enough to be realistic(as noted by his plan to have sectarian sub-states in Iraq), and must accept that same reality. Too many Americans will find that reality a bitter pill, given decades of bogus 'patriotism' and jingoism that have been floated post-Vietnam. C'est la vie.

Spidey · Post by **Spidey** » Fri Jun 20, 2014 8:03 am

As far as going back in…

1. If this is a civil war then I say no, there is no way we should take sides in a civil war, and there is no way we can be blamed for such a thing, because if they don’t want to live in peace…which they have the golden opportunity to do…then there is nothing we can/should do.

2. If it is a true terrorist attack…and we set the conditions for that to happen…then we should go and help. Not sure what that help should consist of…but if we really did set the conditions, then we have a moral obligation.

Will Robinson · Post by **Will Robinson** » Fri Jun 20, 2014 8:48 am

We are going back in, already in in fact, flying missions now. We are going back to try and re-establish intelligence data that we had up until the Obama retreat from the area. We went into VietNam with "just advisors" too.

If we had negotiated a presence there (easy to do if you want it considering the leverage we had) there would be no column of jihadi's marching from town to town because they would have been picked off....thus they took Obama's announcement of retreat and waited...

We didn't need to sustain the kind of losses that led up to the relative stable conditions we experienced right before we pulled out. By leaving the way we did we gave up the leverage, the intelligence and the deterrence factor. So now he doesn't even have the courage of his convictions so we are back in there and will get drawn back in deeper out of necessity.

The public opinion thing is a ridiculous excuse. We didn't set up an online poll to make policy. We elected leaders.
The argument that staying in some capacity is a continuance of the same losses we suffered to get where we were is another lame excuse. We could have controlled a good bit of the shaping of the region instead of tossing a match on the kindling and running away. The Iraqi army was only as strong as it's backbone, which was the US. They were a decade away from being ready for primetime.

The reality is that soon the new owners of that region are going to make you care about it. And that will end up costing us more to remedy than keeping a presence there ever would have. And at that time 'public opinion' will be screaming for action and pointing the finger at the retreat.

callmeslick · Post by **callmeslick** » Fri Jun 20, 2014 8:52 am

Spidey wrote:As far as going back in…

1. If this is a civil war then I say no, there is no way we should take sides in a civil war, and there is no way we can be blamed for such a thing, because if they don’t want to live in peace…which they have the golden opportunity to do…then there is nothing we can/should do.

2. If it is a true terrorist attack…and we set the conditions for that to happen…then we should go and help. Not sure what that help should consist of…but if we really did set the conditions, then we have a moral obligation.

this is clearly NOT a terrorist act. By definition. These folks are establishing an independant Sunni region across Iraq and Syria, that has been their stated plan. In fact, those aims put them at a distance from Al Qaeda, resulting in Al-Q disassociating with ISIS last year. So, therefore, #1 is the reality, as stated by Obama, and we should let them(finally) sort their own crap out. Yes, that sort-out might involve Lebanon, Syria, Iraq, Kurdish regions, Iran, and maybe even spread into the Arabian peninsula, but it is NOT our fight, unless these folks(any of them) start to attack us HERE.

Will Robinson · Post by **Will Robinson** » Fri Jun 20, 2014 8:54 am

callmeslick wrote:... Yes, that sort-out might involve Lebanon, Syria, Iraq, Kurdish regions, Iran, and maybe even spread into the Arabian peninsula, but it is NOT our fight, unless these folks(any of them) start to attack us HERE.

You mean when they resume the attacks.

callmeslick · Post by **callmeslick** » Fri Jun 20, 2014 8:59 am

Will Robinson wrote:
callmeslick wrote:... Yes, that sort-out might involve Lebanon, Syria, Iraq, Kurdish regions, Iran, and maybe even spread into the Arabian peninsula, but it is NOT our fight, unless these folks(any of them) start to attack us HERE.
You mean when they resume the attacks.

please, post documentation of ISIS attacking us. Or, do you mean that generic "all muslims hate us and our way of life' claptrap?

Will Robinson · Post by **Will Robinson** » Fri Jun 20, 2014 9:56 am

callmeslick wrote:
Will Robinson wrote:
callmeslick wrote:... Yes, that sort-out might involve Lebanon, Syria, Iraq, Kurdish regions, Iran, and maybe even spread into the Arabian peninsula, but it is NOT our fight, unless these folks(any of them) start to attack us HERE.
You mean when they resume the attacks.

please, post documentation of ISIS attacking us. Or, do you mean that generic "all muslims hate us and our way of life' claptrap?

Beautiful job setting up that red herring fallacy....not.

It is one or the other but not the reality in the middle that you require a reaction to huh?
Sorry I'm not required to follow such a ridiculous premise.

It was islamofascist terrorists that attacked before. They will grow extremely strong and powerful in that region you claim no one cares about.... weapons, oil/money, hundreds of millions of eager souls programmed for generations to follow the strong warlord...

I don't care if they have sub groups with cool names. I also never have suggested all muslims are the same.

Your attempt to construct the argument to exclude reality is pathetically weak.

sigma · Post by **sigma** » Fri Jun 20, 2014 12:29 pm

Especially for American narcissistic idiots.
I do not know of any case where other countries would exhibit aggression against the United States. Except as a manifestation of righteous anger against the U.S. invasion of other countries.

callmeslick wrote: Or, do you mean that generic "all muslims hate us and our way of life' claptrap?

It is safe to say that the U.S. is much more hated lifestyle of other nations than all of them together. U.S. their actions breeds hatred for the U.S., even in the most friendly people. You are doing this on purpose to create a threat to themselves and then to fight it? Threat to world peace long ago been U.S. foreign policy. But due to your ideology you keep artificially create enemies to be able to fight with the windmills, like Don Quixote with his some Sancho Panza

vision · Post by **vision** » Fri Jun 20, 2014 12:34 pm

Will Robinson wrote:So should Obama have abandoned Obamacare since the majority of Americans opposed it?

If it had the same level of support, yes. But it didn't, so no. Getting out of Iraq was a bi-partisan decision and one of the promises Obama made he was actually able to keep. It's not hard to look of the data on this stuff if your memory has gone lame. Our exit was coordinated with the Iraqis, lest you forget (because they wanted us gone too, and still do, which is different than asking for help).

Gallup wrote:The new high in Iraq war opposition is also notable because it is the highest "mistake" percentage Gallup has ever measured for an active war involving the United States -- surpassing by two points the 61% who said the Vietnam War was a mistake in May 1971. (April 24, 2008)

Pew Research Center wrote:While a majority of the public wants out of Iraq, most do not want a rush for the exit. And many continue to see risks associated with getting out even as they call for it. Among supporters of troop withdrawals in the July survey, those saying that the withdrawals should “be gradual over the next year or two” outnumbered those favoring “immediate withdrawal of all troops”...(September 5, 2007)

Wish granted! What, you mad because the president did what we asked him too? It just never ends with you guys, haha!

vision · Post by **vision** » Fri Jun 20, 2014 12:37 pm

Will Robinson wrote:...hundreds of millions of eager souls programmed for generations to follow the strong warlord...

Look at your low, low opinion of people. Shameful. To you, everyone is "programmed" -- the blacks, the democrats, the population of the Middle East... You are the only clear thinking one Will, we are so lucky to have you! \o/

Spidey · Post by **Spidey** » Fri Jun 20, 2014 1:24 pm

You forgot the Republicans…didn’t you just refer to them as “drones” in the other thread?

vision · Post by **vision** » Fri Jun 20, 2014 1:29 pm

Spidey wrote:You forgot the Republicans…didn’t you just refer to them as “drones” in the other thread?

Read my post again, carefully.

Spidey · Post by **Spidey** » Fri Jun 20, 2014 2:01 pm

So why the need to name a few groups?

I have to take that as "everyone" is just the people Will hates....so to speak...in your words.

If you did mean "everyone" then the named groups are superfluous.

sigma · Post by **sigma** » Fri Jun 20, 2014 2:05 pm

Will Robinson wrote:...hundreds of millions of eager souls programmed for generations to follow the strong warlord...

I can call this assertion correct, if you do not draw conclusions from the lessons of world history. I mean, the history of all the superpowers based on the suppression of other nations, always leads to decay and collapse of these super-empires. If the U.S. can not be flexible enough to be able to adapt to the changing conditions of its existence, it will be the beginning of the decline of a superpower. There is something strange, which makes us think that all mankind should experience a lot of stress from time to time by the world wars, to refresh the gene pool. I have a general impression that God himself by creating the world wars can not create peace and tranquil paradise on Earth, to the collective intelligence of all the people was unable to effectively develop and interact together. Apparently, God does not want, so that we can know more than he wants to give us at this particular time and development of mankind. Apparently, God is advantageous that we were stupid and could not learn his secrets to make it easier to control us.