PDA

View Full Version : US to add 22,000 troops to army (another Obama LIE!)



Nagalfar
07-20-2009, 12:29 PM
http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/americas/8160110.stm



The US Army will "temporarily" increase its size by 22,000 soldiers for the next three years, Defence Secretary Robert Gates has announced.

The additional troops are intended to ease the strain of the US's deployments in Iraq and Afghanistan, Mr Gates said.

The extra manpower will raise the total number of active US soldiers from 547,000 to 569,000.

Mr Gates's defence budget, unveiled in April, set aside $11bn (?6.7bn) to fund increases in military personnel.

Challenge

"The army faces a period where its ability to deploy combat brigades at acceptable fill rates is at risk," Mr Gates said.

"This is a temporary challenge which will peak in the coming year and abate over the course of the next three years."

Independent Senator Joseph Lieberman, who sits on the Armed Services Committee, has proposed an increase of 30,000.

Mr Gates's budget plans have faced fierce opposition from US lawmakers, who oppose his proposal to cease production of the F-22 fighter jet.

The defence secretary argued that the F-22, which was designed in the 1980s, was no longer strategically useful.

Mr. Gates, yet again your full of horse sh*t, we are still using the SR-71's, those were designed apx. 1952, they didnt have the ability/technology to build them till a over a decade later..

Design date is irrelevant.. computers, CPU's, missile tech and countless other things are proof this idiot couldn't find his own ass with both hands, a map and a gay congressional page to help him.

Frankly I am happy to see the added manpower, it was needed a long time ago..

Yet ...and call me foolish, but didn't Chairman Obama tell us he would end the wars and get the troops home? why does he keep adding more time and troops to our current missions?? using them at a insane tempo, and cut their budget, while giving money to all these mega rich corporations? in bed with big business? he is giving big business the BJ they have ever had in the history of the world.. lmao..

Mtguy8787
07-20-2009, 12:31 PM
Good lord OP.

You can't expect Lord Obama to bring hope and change AND keep his word.

Geez.

Nagalfar
07-20-2009, 12:35 PM
Good lord OP.

You can't expect Lord Obama to bring hope and change AND keep his word.

Geez.

My bad..... lol.

BUT! it would be a change if he DID keep his promises..

Grimbeard
07-20-2009, 12:36 PM
I wish all the military people would get together and stand up against his orders.
Something can be done for some real change.

SpyderTT
07-20-2009, 12:41 PM
wow... I still can't believe how many people voted for him.

Kane_89
07-20-2009, 12:58 PM
good.

army should be bigger than that.

Decoy Octopus
07-20-2009, 01:14 PM
You are right OP the current troops don't need any breaks. Let them work until they get killed or kill themselves.

US_Ranger
07-20-2009, 01:18 PM
You are right OP the current troops don't need any breaks. Let them work until they get killed or kill themselves.


Shouldn't you be making threads about being in the army even though you're not?

Also, strong not understanding the point of the thread. The point is that Obama lied....AGAIN.

Decoy Octopus
07-20-2009, 01:22 PM
Shouldn't you be making threads about being in the army even though you're not?

Also, strong not understanding the point of the thread. The point is that Obama lied....AGAIN.

How do he lie? he said he would pull out of Iraq not Afghanistan.

dewilliamson
07-20-2009, 01:25 PM
With the economy in the state that its in, military recruitment numbers are booming...

I doubt they'd turn away people willing to serve.

NYY
07-20-2009, 01:25 PM
LOLBama lying yet again. At least this time it serves some benefit.

JustAnotherUser
07-20-2009, 01:28 PM
I thought the military couldn't get enough people for its current operations, let alone increasing them.

otisthebat
07-20-2009, 01:40 PM
How do he lie? he said he would pull out of Iraq not Afghanistan.

WRONG!

one of his main campaign plugs was that he promised to end the war and get the troops home.

he's doing the exact opposite.

Decoy Octopus
07-20-2009, 01:43 PM
WRONG!

one of his main campaign plugs was that he promised to end the war and get the troops home.

he's doing the exact opposite.

Ending the war doesnt mean packing up immediately it takes time, we pulled out of Iraq now we are working on finishing Afghanistan. (military science 101) How much of those 22,000 troops are even infantry or combat arms? Learn before you spew your BS

Vitalshok44
07-20-2009, 01:45 PM
Ending the war doesnt mean packing up immediately it takes time, we pulled out of Iraq now we are working on finishing Afghanistan. (military science 101) How much of those 22,000 troops are even infantry or combat arms? Learn before you spew your BS

http://i29.tinypic.com/21mhfyp.gif

otisthebat
07-20-2009, 01:52 PM
Ending the war doesnt mean packing up immediately it takes time, we pulled out of Iraq now we are working on finishing Afghanistan. (military science 101) How much of those 22,000 troops are even infantry or combat arms? Learn before you spew your BS

so there are no missions taking place in iraq?


and yes it takes time, but obama said we would have all troops out of the middle east in 6 months. then when he was elected, he changed it to 18 months, the same plan ol bushy had. but he is going the wrong direction. he just sent 4000 more troops into afghanistan.

obama has no intention of ending the war in the middle east any time soon.

MyLastSerenade
07-20-2009, 01:55 PM
Hopefully in 6 months I will be one of them.

Yes want to be a soldier, yes cutting weight to become one.

MistaO
07-20-2009, 01:56 PM
"Meet the new boss, same as the old boss."

Decoy Octopus
07-20-2009, 01:57 PM
so there are no missions taking place in iraq?


and yes it takes time, but obama said we would have all troops out of the middle east in 6 months. then when he was elected, he changed it to 18 months, the same plan ol bushy had. but he is going the wrong direction. he just sent 4000 more troops into afghanistan.

obama has no intention of ending the war in the middle east any time soon.

There are some troops on the outskirts of Iraq for security yes. He is pushing to end the war in the Afghan thats why they just made that huge offensive into taliban territory. And god bless the simple people who belived he could end the war in 6 months.

Nagalfar
07-20-2009, 01:58 PM
With the economy in the state that its in, military recruitment numbers are booming...

I doubt they'd turn away people willing to serve.

OR.. maybe those numbers are up because not everyone is willing to sit on their asses while OTHER people do what they should be doing as well..

I have no DOUBT this is going to be a hard, if not impossible, concept for you to understand.. some people feel the OWE IT to their nation to stand up and be counted by serving their nation though the military..

Kane_89
07-20-2009, 01:59 PM
so there are no missions taking place in iraq?


and yes it takes time, but obama said we would have all troops out of the middle east in 6 months. then when he was elected, he changed it to 18 months, the same plan ol bushy had. but he is going the wrong direction. he just sent 4000 more troops into afghanistan.

obama has no intention of ending the war in the middle east any time soon.

im pretty sure he promised more troops in afghanistan during the campaign.

and i dont think he said he woud end it soon either.

Nagalfar
07-20-2009, 02:00 PM
Ending the war doesnt mean packing up immediately it takes time, we pulled out of Iraq now we are working on finishing Afghanistan. (military science 101) How much of those 22,000 troops are even infantry or combat arms? Learn before you spew your BS

When your being shot at, mortared, or rocketed.. EVERYONE is infantry! lol..

US_Ranger
07-20-2009, 02:40 PM
There are some troops on the outskirts of Iraq for security yes. He is pushing to end the war in the Afghan thats why they just made that huge offensive into taliban territory. And god bless the simple people who belived he could end the war in 6 months.

That's exactly the point of the thread. OBAMA LIED.

Decoy Octopus
07-20-2009, 02:42 PM
That's exactly the point of the thread. OBAMA LIED.

Why are you questioning our commander? you are out of term.

US_Ranger
07-20-2009, 02:44 PM
Why are you questioning our commander? you are out of term.

1) Shut the **** up

2) You're not even a maggot yet since you haven't even shipped to BCT. You're the poop from a maggot, if that.

3) You are exactly what's wrong with the world, you're a sheep and a retarded one at that

4) Don't ever have children because whatever gene in in control of your intelligence (lack of) needs to die off

otisthebat
07-20-2009, 02:46 PM
1) Shut the **** up

2) You're not even a maggot yet since you haven't even shipped to BCT. You're the poop from a maggot, if that.

3) You are exactly what's wrong with the world, you're a sheep and a retarded one at that

4) Don't ever have children because whatever gene in in control of your intelligence (lack of) needs to die off

holy sh*t.

Bluerain
07-20-2009, 02:49 PM
Obama= War Monger and Baby Killer !

Where's the outrage from the leftwing nutjobs ?

Decoy Octopus
07-20-2009, 02:51 PM
1) Shut the **** up

2) You're not even a maggot yet since you haven't even shipped to BCT. You're the poop from a maggot, if that.

3) You are exactly what's wrong with the world, you're a sheep and a retarded one at that

4) Don't ever have children because whatever gene in in control of your intelligence (lack of) needs to die off

im far from a sheep I know about Obama and his agenda but we have no place to talk bad about especially if it is going compromise the mission.

"I WILL ALWAYS PLACE THE MISSION FIRST"

US_Ranger
07-20-2009, 02:59 PM
im far from a sheep I know about Obama and his agenda but we have no place to talk bad about especially if it is going compromise the mission.

"I WILL ALWAYS PLACE THE MISSION FIRST"

****ing troll.

YOU ARE NOT IN THE MILITARY. SHUT THE **** UP.

You aren't compromising **** because you don't know anything. You don't know about the mission, you don't know about the conditions, you don't know about combat, you don't know about deployment, you don't know about the military and you don't know jack ****.

Get the **** out of here, turn your computer off, throw the monitor out the window, go look in a mirror and take a look at yourself and realize you're nothing. ****tards like you are EXACTLY the reason that the military gets put in bad light. You worthless troll.

illriginalized
07-20-2009, 03:00 PM
I've noticed that Obama's been lying even more and more recently. He's saying things that he knows won't possibly happen, but says it because he knows that there's people who can't put 2 and 2 together will fall for it.

T150
07-20-2009, 03:29 PM
Yet ...and call me foolish, but didn't Chairman Obama tell us he would end the wars and get the troops home? why does he keep adding more time and troops to our current missions??

Not in Afghanistan no, quite the opposite.

nutsy54
07-20-2009, 04:30 PM
You are right OP the current troops don't need any breaks. Let them work until they get killed or kill themselves.You're completely missing the point.

If President Obama had kept the promises made by Candidate Obama... We wouldn't need the extra troops because many of our guys would be home by now. Instead, he continued the war he said he would end, while expanding the one he said he would expand.

But, all the other candidates were the evil "warmongers!" :rolleyes:

How do he lie? he said he would pull out of Iraq not Afghanistan.

Ending the war doesnt mean packing up immediately it takes time, we pulled out of Iraq now we are working on finishing Afghanistan. (military science 101) How much of those 22,000 troops are even infantry or combat arms? Learn before you spew your BS
Quiz: How may troops have been withdrawn from Iraq since January 21st?

Based on his campaign promises, the number should be around 52,000 today.
The actual number? ZERO


It's incredibly disappointing that someone "in" the Army has no idea what the Army is actually doing today. Are these the actions of a force that has "pulled out of Iraq"?

DoD Announces Upcoming Operation Iraqi Freedom Rotation
14 July 2009

The Department of Defense announced today additional major units scheduled to deploy in support of Operation Iraqi Freedom. The announcement involves three division headquarters and eight brigade combat teams consisting of approximately 30,000 personnel.

These units will replace redeploying units, with no increase in overall force levels. The deployment window for these units will begin in the fall and continue into early 2010.

Specific units receiving deployment orders include:

Headquarters units:
3rd Infantry Division Headquarters, Ft. Stewart, Ga.
1st Infantry Division Headquarters, Ft. Riley, Kan.
1st Armored Division Headquarters, Wiesbaden, Germany

Brigade combat teams:
1st Brigade Combat Team, 1st Armored Division, Ft. Bliss, Texas
1st Brigade Combat Team, 10th Mountain Division, Ft. Drum, N.Y.
2nd Brigade Combat Team, 10th Mountain Division, Ft. Drum, N.Y.

Advisory and assistance brigades:
3rd Brigade Combat Team, 3rd Infantry Division, Ft. Benning, Ga.
2nd Brigade Combat Team, 3rd Infantry Division, Ft. Stewart, Ga.
1st Brigade Combat Team, 3rd Infantry Division, Ft. Stewart, Ga.
3rd Brigade Combat Team, 4th Infantry Division, Ft. Carson, Colo.

Security force brigade:
53rd Brigade Combat Team, Florida Army National Guard

jmonty
07-20-2009, 04:32 PM
Mr. Gates, yet again your full of horse sh*t, we are still using the SR-71's, those were designed apx. 1952, they didnt have the ability/technology to build them till a over a decade later..

the sr-71 was retired during the clinton era..

TheLasher
07-20-2009, 04:34 PM
"Meet the new boss, same as the old boss."

x2 same **** different day

nutsy54
07-20-2009, 04:42 PM
"I WILL ALWAYS PLACE THE MISSION FIRST"Based on your false belief that we've "pulled out of Iraq"... You don't even know what the Army's current mission is.

Please, end the constant embarrassment that accompanies every one of your posts. Stop typing, start learning.

pc9
07-20-2009, 04:52 PM
Zatoitchi STFU.

you really dont know jack **** about anything. just what you learn PLAYING army in your RSP while you are waiting to go to BCT.

for christ sakes, you arent even going active. you are NG. wtf do you think you will do in the NG? Show up to drill once a month, pt, go home. So stfu and show respect to the soldiers, marines, sailors, and airmen on this forum that have tried to save you embarrassment by telling you to shut your face.

i can't wait to hear your stories from basic.

KRANE
07-20-2009, 04:58 PM
You're completely missing the point.

If President Obama had kept the promises made by Candidate Obama... We wouldn't need the extra troops because many of our guys would be home by now. Instead, he continued the war he said he would end, while expanding the one he said he would expand.

But, all the other candidates were the evil "warmongers!" :rolleyes:What's your point here? That Obama know all along that he wasn't going to bring the troops home, rather increase the number deployed? Or that he made a mistake? What would be the point in him lying about that? Besides, we've already been down this road. No one can guarantee military strategy when there are so many variables involved. Things change daily in war and we have to be able to respond to them. Every soldier knows that.

nutsy54
07-20-2009, 05:23 PM
What's your point here? That Obama know all along that he wasn't going to bring the troops home, rather increase the number deployed? Or that he made a mistake?I'd say either one is damning.

He either lied to the American public, using our Soldier's lives as pawns to get himself elected - or he had no clue what the hell he was talking about, planning, and promising with the focal point of his campaign, before everyone started staring at the economy.

This isn't a "change in strategy" brought about by events - Because Iraq today is in Far Better condition than when Obama first started making these promises (thanks, of course, to the Surge which he vocally opposed). If anything, there's only justification to move faster, not slower, based on current conditions.

Instead, he's continuing on the exact schedule negotiated by the Bush administration, hasn't brought a single troop home yet, and is continuing new deployments. Yet all those who hated the war up until January 21st are now thunderously silent.

Decoy Octopus
07-20-2009, 05:57 PM
I'll just leave it at this the troops can't be pulled out too quickly, the place will become a haven for anti-western militia, thats all im saying.

Now the US citizens can talk about Barack all they want. They have the liberty to do so and they should do it. But to some of the guys(under military contract) here I see talking about politics and how they don't wanna serve under certain people ill tell you this. Think about the oath you took and read the paper out loud and remember your duty to the country.

nutsy54
07-20-2009, 06:50 PM
I'll just leave it at this the troops can't be pulled out too quickly, the place will become a haven for anti-western militia, thats all im saying.

Now the US citizens can talk about Barack all they want. They have the liberty to do so and they should do it. But to some of the guys(under military contract) here I see talking about politics and how they don't wanna serve under certain people ill tell you this. Think about the oath you took and read the paper out loud and remember your duty to the country.Who here, in uniform, has said they don't want to serve under this President? I've been on active duty for over 18 years - do the math on how many different presidents, and political views, that's included.

By I still have free speech, as a private citizen, in a forum where my position is not directly influencing any junior personnel who work for me. (I have a strict No Politics policy in the office). Perhaps YOU need to understand what the hell you're talking about before lecturing others.

And if the troops "can't be pulled out too quickly"... Then why did he PROMISE to do just that? He said 52,000 would be withdrawn by the 5-month point ("Begin immediate withdrawal upon taking office, with all troops out in 16 months"). The actual number is Zero. That's one hell of a difference.


As a future Soldier, you should be rather pissed that the lives of your fellow troops were used as pawns to get the current President elected, when he either had no plans to actually withdraw, or he didn't know that such action was unrealistic.

thequestion
07-20-2009, 06:50 PM
****ing troll.

YOU ARE NOT IN THE MILITARY. SHUT THE **** UP.

You aren't compromising **** because you don't know anything. You don't know about the mission, you don't know about the conditions, you don't know about combat, you don't know about deployment, you don't know about the military and you don't know jack ****.

Get the **** out of here, turn your computer off, throw the monitor out the window, go look in a mirror and take a look at yourself and realize you're nothing. ****tards like you are EXACTLY the reason that the military gets put in bad light. You worthless troll.

I would just like to thank you on behalf of the entire forum for the affable way that you have dispelled stereotypes about members of the military. Hats off to you.

Nagalfar
07-20-2009, 07:42 PM
the sr-71 was retired during the clinton era..

...and it was quickly put back into service as there was no replacement..

Nagalfar
07-20-2009, 07:44 PM
I would just like to thank you on behalf of the entire forum for the affable way that you have dispelled stereotypes about members of the military. Hats off to you.

Yes, the military can be rough when someone is overly sensitive... lol.

jdwhitney
07-20-2009, 07:56 PM
I would just like to thank you on behalf of the entire forum for the affable way that you have dispelled stereotypes about members of the military. Hats off to you.

I think he did a pretty good job, since most of this forum thinks service members are mindless automatons blindly following orders given to them. Rather he demonstrated how service members are thinking feeling people, many of whom take their jobs to heart, and believe very deeply in what they do. I, as a former service member, can certainly understand how some impostering fool spouting nonsense would piss service members off.

thequestion
07-20-2009, 08:06 PM
I think he did a pretty good job, since most of this forum thinks service members are mindless automatons blindly following orders given to them. Rather he demonstrated how service members are thinking feeling people, many of whom take their jobs to heart, and believe very deeply in what they do. I, as a former service member, can certainly understand how some impostering fool spouting nonsense would piss service members off.

I can see how your experience as a service member would lead to an alternate (and by no means less valid) interpretation than mine. I would only argue that his response was a bit too "feeling" than "thinking", which only reinforces a negative view of members of the military as being aggressive and less than intellectual. But I completely understand your view.

jmonty
07-20-2009, 08:16 PM
...and it was quickly put back into service as there was no replacement..

i don't think so. part of the controversy was that the blackbird was better than satellites, still would be, because it could be on station exactly when needed.. feel free to go edit wikipedia though. :p [i got my info from the book "skunkworks"]

off topic: i totally forgot about my father in law bragging about how the swedes use to be able to get a radar lock on it back in the day.

DCarruso
07-20-2009, 08:59 PM
Obama= War Monger and Baby Killer !

Where's the outrage from the leftwing nutjobs ?

Apparently too busy blowing the Messiah.

macktruck
07-20-2009, 09:16 PM
"Meet the new boss, worse than the old boss."



Fixed

markymark69
07-20-2009, 09:37 PM
*snipped*

One question: Do you support immediate withdrawal from Iraq & Afghanistan?

lightningwatche
07-20-2009, 09:41 PM
wow... I still can't believe how many people voted for him.


You mean ACORN ballot stuffing? All that is needed is swing districts of swing states.

markymark69
07-20-2009, 09:42 PM
or he had no clue what the hell he was talking about, planning, and promising with the focal point of his campaign, before everyone started staring at the economy.


Nutsy...with this statement you are coming across as a complete partisan hack.

A candidate does not have at his disposal the full panoply of JCOS, NSC, etc that are afforded as CINC.

While I dont agree with his economic policies, if in fact he didnt know what he was talking about, at least he didnt 'stay the course' when given the rundown by his NSC.

If you want to ding him for that....then its pretty obvious you liked Bush for 'staying the course'...at least he didnt lie. lol!

US_Ranger
07-20-2009, 09:42 PM
I can see how your experience as a service member would lead to an alternate (and by no means less valid) interpretation than mine. I would only argue that his response was a bit too "feeling" than "thinking", which only reinforces a negative view of members of the military as being aggressive and less than intellectual. But I completely understand your view.

http://forum.bodybuilding.com/showthread.php?t=117828431

thequestion
07-20-2009, 09:46 PM
http://forum.bodybuilding.com/showthread.php?t=117828431

And?

US_Ranger
07-20-2009, 09:52 PM
And?

As you can see, the dislike for this piece of **** is ongoing. He's not even in the military and he's telling people how it is. He's also talking **** about other branches and he's saying things that are untrue and hurt the credibility of the military. I'm 99% sure he's nothing but a troll but there is that 1% chance he's really that big of a piece of ****. I'm sure he's been reported by a few people but I have no idea why he's banned. Regardless, him spewing **** about the military that isn't true is about as insulting as you can get, especially for those who served.

KRANE
07-21-2009, 01:37 PM
Instead, he's continuing on the exact schedule negotiated by the Bush administration, hasn't brought a single troop home yet, and is continuing new deployments. Yet all those who hated the war up until January 21st are now thunderously silent.Is he make this decision unilaterally and ignoring the recommendations of his generals? Petraeus is commander of the U.S. forces in Iraq, and maintain that the situation there is "fragile and tenuous."

US_Ranger
07-21-2009, 01:43 PM
Is he make this decision unilaterally and ignoring the recommendations of his generals? Petraeus is commander of the U.S. forces in Iraq, and maintain that the situation there is "fragile and tenuous."

Maybe you read Nutsy's post wrong.

How is Obama's position any differnet than the one Bush used? And why is it all of a sudden "All Quiet on the Western Front" with Obama continuing the war when it was fanatically anti-Bush when he continued the war.

And do you honestly think Bush wasn't listening to his generals? WHo's idea do you think it was for the surge in Iraq? The surge actually worked. And who do you think voted AGAINST it? (I'll give you a hint, he's currently the leader of the free world)

Decoy Octopus
07-21-2009, 01:52 PM
Maybe you read Nutsy's post wrong.

How is Obama's position any differnet than the one Bush used? And why is it all of a sudden "All Quiet on the Western Front" with Obama continuing the war when it was fanatically anti-Bush when he continued the war.

And do you honestly think Bush wasn't listening to his generals? WHo's idea do you think it was for the surge in Iraq? The surge actually worked. And who do you think voted AGAINST it? (I'll give you a hint, he's currently the leader of the free world)

He admitted he was wrong.

nutsy54
07-21-2009, 02:22 PM
Is he make this decision unilaterally and ignoring the recommendations of his generals? Petraeus is commander of the U.S. forces in Iraq, and maintain that the situation there is "fragile and tenuous."That's immaterial to the discussion that he LIED (or had no idea what he was talking about) when making his grand campaign promises - for which he was praised as the guy who would "bring our troops home", while everyone else was just an evil "Warmonger!"

I'm not attacking his current actions in Iraq - I'm attacking his lies (or naive inexperience), which created positions that helped get him elected. Positions which have now been completely forgotten. Kind of makes you wonder how the election would have turned out... If he had told the truth.

The situation in Iraq has only improved (dramatically) since he originally stated his position of Immediate Withdrawal. If the people he's listening to now are telling him to stay... Who the hell was he listening to before?

nutsy54
07-21-2009, 02:25 PM
He admitted he was wrong.Too many people quoted in that reply - Who admitted he was wrong, about What, and When?

Decoy Octopus
07-21-2009, 02:49 PM
Too many people quoted in that reply - Who admitted he was wrong, about What, and When?

Obama about the surge

nutsy54
07-21-2009, 02:55 PM
Obama about the surgeWhen did he finally admit that? (A cited quote would be nice). And it still doesn't justify the whole "let's-lie-about-withdrawing-troops-to-get-elected" thing.

The surge worked. Violence is down dramatically. Yet our troops remain. :confused:

Nevermind, I found it (well, kind of)...

4 Sep 2008
The troop surge in Iraq has been more successful than anyone could have imagined, Barack Obama conceded Thursday in his first-ever interview on FOX News "The O’Reilly Factor."

As recently as July, the Democratic presidential candidate declined to rate the surge a success, but said it had helped reduce violence in the country. On Thursday, Obama acknowledged the 2007 increase in U.S. troops has benefited the Iraqi people.

"I think that the surge has succeeded in ways that nobody anticipated," Obama said while refusing to retract his initial opposition to the surge. "I've already said it's succeeded beyond our wildest dreams." ...

Let's see...
- "Succeeded in ways that nobody anticipated" - (Except for President Bush and his military advisers, and the Pelosi/Reid Congress which authorized it)
- Still refused to retract his initial opposition
- So, it turns out he was completely wrong about one of the fundamental issues of the campaign. But that's OK, because now that he won the election, he'll go back to doing exactly what had already been scheduled by Bush (which was a completely wrong & horrible plan, right up until January 21st). But with a lot more combat troops into Afghanistan, and 22,000 more Soldiers added to the Army.

Boxman
07-21-2009, 04:33 PM
Whether or not the "surge" worked in Iraq is irrelevant if you opposed the entire war to begin with (which Obama did).

And on that topic, Obama was 100% correct in opposing the war. I give him kudos for being one of the few democrats willing to take a principled stand against the Iraq war in a time when everyone was beating the war drums (including the entire US news media and most Democrat politicians).

nutsy54
07-21-2009, 04:36 PM
And on that topic, Obama was 100% correct in opposing the war. I give him kudos for being one of the few democrats willing to take a principled stand against the Iraq war in a time when everyone was beating the war drums (including the entire US news media and most Democrat politicians).He took a "principled stand"... right up until January 21st. Ever since then, he hasn't really done anything to end or change the timeline of the war. How principled is that?

roach_coach
07-21-2009, 04:48 PM
Good for him. I wish he (or any president_ make that increase permanent, and increase the size of the military back to Cold War levels. Fighting while outnumbered and still winning is a good philosophy, but examples like the surge in Iraq demonstrates a need for more troops in our armed forces in this current world environment.

Mtguy8787
07-21-2009, 04:49 PM
Whether or not the "surge" worked in Iraq is irrelevant if you opposed the entire war to begin with (which Obama did).

Except during the times when he voted in support of it...




And on that topic, Obama was 100% correct in opposing the war. I give him kudos for being one of the few democrats willing to take a principled stand against the Iraq war in a time when everyone was beating the war drums (including the entire US news media and most Democrat politicians).

Until it actually came time for him to make a decision on the matter.

:rolleyes:

Mtguy8787
07-21-2009, 04:51 PM
Good for him. I wish he (or any president_ make that increase permanent, and increase the size of the military back to Cold War levels. Fighting while outnumbered and still winning is a good philosophy, but examples like the surge in Iraq demonstrates a need for more troops in our armed forces in this current world environment.

Because there are so many countries capable and likely of launching a military attack against the USA. :rollseyes:

roach_coach
07-21-2009, 04:54 PM
Because there are so many countries capable and likely of launching a military attack against the USA. :rollseyes:

Actually, you're right. The problem of the future are non-state actors, as seen in the past 15 years with al Qaeda, Taliban and insurgents in Iraq. (serious)

Stizzel
07-21-2009, 05:41 PM
Whether or not the "surge" worked in Iraq is irrelevant if you opposed the entire war to begin with (which Obama did).

And on that topic, Obama was 100% correct in opposing the war. I give him kudos for being one of the few democrats willing to take a principled stand against the Iraq war in a time when everyone was beating the war drums (including the entire US news media and most Democrat politicians).

Actually, I found quite a few quotes from Obama back in I think '02 when he did an interview, and he very definatly supported the war.

But the war was popular back then, so yeah....

Boxman
07-21-2009, 05:50 PM
He took a "principled stand"... right up until January 21st. Ever since then, he hasn't really done anything to end or change the timeline of the war. How principled is that?


Except during the times when he voted in support of it...



Until it actually came time for him to make a decision on the matter.

:rolleyes:


Because there are so many countries capable and likely of launching a military attack against the USA. :rollseyes:

Oh come on... you guys are totally nitpicking now. Obama's simply following the timetable for Iraqi withdrawal that the Bush administration had already accelerated in 2008. Keep in mind, the original plan was to be in Iraq forever, but after it became clear that they could only pacify the Iraqi resistance by committing to an eventual withdrawal of US troops, the Bush administration scrapped their original mission.

Later in that year (2008) the Bush administration accelerated the withdrawal timetable even further. Obama inherited this new timetable for withdrawal and has been following it.

I fail to see a problem here. You people would bitch no matter what Obama did, and you will hate him 4 years from now no matter how well he manages the country during his term. Conversely, you morons blindly defended Bush for the last 8 years...

jmonty
07-21-2009, 05:50 PM
Because there are so many countries capable and likely of launching a military attack against the USA. :rollseyes:

probably a common belief among americans on december 6th, 1941. or.. sept 10th 2001.

just sayin'.

Mtguy8787
07-21-2009, 05:54 PM
Oh come on... you guys are totally nitpicking now. Obama's simply following the timetable for Iraqi withdrawal that the Bush administration had already accelerated in 2008. Keep in mind, the original plan was to be in Iraq forever, but after it became clear that they could only pacify the Iraqi resistance by committing to an eventual withdrawal of US troops, the Bush administration scrapped their original mission.

Later in that year (2008) the Bush administration accelerated the withdrawal timetable even further. Obama inherited this new timetable for withdrawal and has been following it.

I fail to see a problem here. You people would bitch no matter what Obama did, and you will hate him 4 years from now no matter how well he manages the country during his term.

Hope and change! No more Bush!


Conversely, you morons blindly defended Bush for the last 8 years...

Actually, a great many people in this thread were against most of Bush's actions as well.

Stop pulling **** out of your ass.


probably a common belief among americans on december 6th, 1941. or.. sept 10th 2001.

just sayin'.


WWII was already in motion, and Japan had long since had a huge military buildup and had been conquering territories for some time. Completely different scenario than today.


9/11 was a terrorist attack, not a military attack. Having a big military doesnt prevent terrorist attacks.

jmonty
07-21-2009, 05:59 PM
Having a big military doesnt prevent terrorist attacks.

can't deny that it's helpful afterwards.




WWII was already in motion, and Japan had long since had a huge military buildup and had been conquering territories for some time.

none of ours.


Completely different scenario than today.


no, both times had people with their heads in the sand chanting 'isolationism'.

Freddie Beef
07-21-2009, 06:02 PM
I always see you making good points towards a lot of the posts in here. So how do you feel about the F-22's bieng stopped. No one will have technology like this for a long time, meaning instant air superiority. Shouldnt we be making about 100 more than stop. Why stop short of what we need.

Stizzel
07-21-2009, 06:02 PM
probably a common belief among americans on december 6th, 1941. or.. sept 10th 2001.

just sayin'.

Lets see...

In 1941 the (pro war) president responds to information about an imminent Japanese attack by moving his navy to Hawaii and having them disarmed. The japanese attack came too soon to finish painting bullseyes on the ships in port unfortunatly.

As for 9/11, that was our own fault too. If 1/1000 of the money spent on our backwards interventionist policies was spent on national security through the INS instead, it would never have happened.

nutsy54
07-21-2009, 06:12 PM
I fail to see a problem here.The problem is simple: HE LIED TO GET ELECTED. He pretended to care about the troops, and he pretended that his goal and intent was to remove our forces as quickly as possible. Either that, or he actually believed this naive plan could work.

Begin immediate withdrawal, with all troops out in 16 months.


1 Dec 2008:
At a press conference today where President-elect Barack Obama announced his national security team, a reporter asked Obama if he still intended to "withdraw all U.S. forces from Iraq in 16 months after Inauguration."
"I believe that 16 months is the right time frame," said Obama, noting that he has 'consistently' said he will listen to the recommendations of his commanders on the ground.

Obama noted that during the presidential campaign he promised to "remove our combat troops from Iraq in 16 months with the understanding that it might be necessary, likely to be necessary, to maintain a residual force." Obama then said that the status-of-forces agreement passed by the Iraqi Parliament last week means that "we are on a glide path to reducing our forces in Iraq."http://thinkprogress.org/2008/12/01/obama-sofa-withdrawal/

- It ain't happening. Total troop level reduction after six months in office: ZERO
- He would listen to commanders on the ground - after making uninformed & baseless promises to the voters
- Oh, and that "residual force"... Now known to be 50,000 - 1/3 of the overall total


I can easily support our actions in Iraq, while opposing the man who lied and used the lives of our Soldiers as political pawns to get himself elected.

nutsy54
07-21-2009, 06:18 PM
I always see you making good points towards a lot of the posts in here. So how do you feel about the F-22's bieng stopped. No one will have technology like this for a long time, meaning instant air superiority. Shouldnt we be making about 100 more than stop. Why stop short of what we need.Quick off-topic detour to respond, but if you want more, start or use a properly titled thread ;)

From what little I know, cutting the F-22 was a good move. The F-35 will meet our needs, and we can stop pouring money into at least one bloated procurement program.

AntiGlobalist
07-21-2009, 06:25 PM
Ending the war doesnt mean packing up immediately it takes time, we pulled out of Iraq now we are working on finishing Afghanistan. (military science 101) How much of those 22,000 troops are even infantry or combat arms? Learn before you spew your BS

Wow, pure definition of irony right here folks.

KRANE
07-21-2009, 06:28 PM
The problem is simple: HE LIED TO GET ELECTED. He pretended to care about the troops, and he pretended that his goal and intent was to remove our forces as quickly as possible. Either that, or he actually believed this naive plan could work.

Begin immediate withdrawal, with all troops out in 16 months.Haven't you beaten this dead horse enough? You've built it up enough so that if the economy does tank, he can be the prefect scapegoat.

Boxman
07-21-2009, 06:34 PM
The problem is simple: HE LIED TO GET ELECTED. He pretended to care about the troops, and he pretended that his goal and intent was to remove our forces as quickly as possible. Either that, or he actually believed this naive plan could work.

There are lies, and then there are LIES.

Like say, the difference between lying to the entire country and falsifying evidence to launch a war that kills hundreds of thousands of people and costs trillions of dollars... vs failing to withdraw from Iraq at the exact schedule that was promised.

This is such trivial nitpicking that you lose all credibility even bringing it up.

And by the way, Obama certainly cares more for our troops than the guy who lied his way into a war that killed over 4,000 of them.

My god you people are such hypocrites and frauds. Where was your moral outrage when it mattered?

Stizzel
07-21-2009, 06:39 PM
There are lies, and then there are LIES.

Like say, the difference between lying to the entire country and falsifying evidence to launch a war that kills hundreds of thousands of people and costs trillions of dollars...

So when is Big O going to start prosecuting the Bush administration? Oh thats right, he said he would protect them from indictment instead.


vs failing to withdraw from Iraq at the exact schedule that was promised.

You mean failing to deviate from the original plans laid out by Bush in any way. Including leaving behind tens of thousands of our military permanently. (this means we're never actually leaving Iraq. Thanks again Mr. Hope and Change!)



This is such trivial nitpicking that you lose all credibility even bringing it up.

So far Obama has spent his entire presidency stabbing his supporters in the back. Its okay to flinch guys. Let us know you're not literally robots.


And by the way, Obama certainly cares more for our troops than the guy who lied his way into a war that killed over 4,000 of them.

My god you people are such hypocrites and frauds. Where was your moral outrage when it mattered?

Yes thats why he's increasing troop levels in the middle east and trying to make them pay for their own health care if they get wounded. Because he cares about them.

MistaO
07-21-2009, 06:46 PM
Reps for video of Obama on U.S. troop occupation in Iraq (the "mistake" war), he says in the video:

In context, "If president, I will not remove troops 1 year from now, not 6 months, not tomorrow, but today!"


F ucking fraud, just like the rest of them.

MistaO
07-21-2009, 06:48 PM
There are lies, and then there are LIES.

Like say, the difference between lying to the entire country and falsifying evidence to launch a war that kills hundreds of thousands of people and costs trillions of dollars... vs failing to withdraw from Iraq at the exact schedule that was promised.

This is such trivial nitpicking that you lose all credibility even bringing it up.

And by the way, Obama certainly cares more for our troops than the guy who lied his way into a war that killed over 4,000 of them.

My god you people are such hypocrites and frauds. Where was your moral outrage when it mattered?

10/10 laughter, thank you, thank you very much.

Kane_89
07-21-2009, 07:04 PM
There are lies, and then there are LIES.

Like say, the difference between lying to the entire country and falsifying evidence to launch a war that kills hundreds of thousands of people and costs trillions of dollars... vs failing to withdraw from Iraq at the exact schedule that was promised.

This is such trivial nitpicking that you lose all credibility even bringing it up.

And by the way, Obama certainly cares more for our troops than the guy who lied his way into a war that killed over 4,000 of them.

My god you people are such hypocrites and frauds. Where was your moral outrage when it mattered?

epic post.

nutsy54
07-21-2009, 07:09 PM
epic post.Epic that it's so full of false statements, it's not even worth responding to.

Just another "Obama can f*ck up all he wants, because I hate Bush more" rant.

Kane_89
07-21-2009, 07:21 PM
Epic that it's so full of false statements, it's not even worth responding to.

Just another "Obama can f*ck up all he wants, because I hate Bush more" rant.

nah, not really.

only a neocon would say that lying about a withdrawal date is worse than lying to start a phony war that kills over 4000 Americans.

markymark69
07-21-2009, 07:22 PM
The problem is simple: HE LIED TO GET ELECTED.

Good god Nutsy...you sound like a woman on the rag.

You lied to me!!!!...over and over and over and over and over.
You have posted it 100+ times. (dont believe me....check your posts..)

How do you know he lied? You privy to some intel we dont have access to?

Jesus H'ing Christ...you have a severe case of ODS.

Bush LIED, Clinton LIED, McCain LIED...hell even Washington LIED to get elected.

Here is a news flash to you Nutsy: Every single politician in DC would suck a d!ck in times square if it would guarantee an election.

Do you wake up in the morning screaming He lied to get elected!!!!

lol! Full blown case of ODS.


or he had no clue what the hell he was talking about, planning, and promising with the focal point of his campaign, before everyone started staring at the economy.


Nutsy...with this statement you are coming across as a complete partisan hack.

A candidate does not have at his disposal the full panoply of JCOS, NSC, etc that are afforded as CINC.

While I dont agree with his economic policies, if in fact he didnt know what he was talking about, at least he didnt 'stay the course' when given the rundown by his NSC.

If you want to ding him for that....then its pretty obvious you liked Bush for 'staying the course'...at least he didnt lie. lol! Or did he? I googled your posts....never once said Bush lied to get elected....odd.

Stizzel
07-21-2009, 07:24 PM
nah, not really.

only a neocon would say that lying about a withdrawal date is worse than lying to start a phony war that kills over 4000 Americans.

Negged for strawman

Kane_89
07-21-2009, 07:25 PM
Negged for strawman

lol

nutsy54
07-21-2009, 07:28 PM
only a neocon would say that lying about a withdrawal date is worse than lying to start a phony war that kills over 4000 Americans.When all else fails, just pull the "Neo-Con! Neo-Con! Neo-Con!" attack card. I won't even address the "lying to start a war" bull****, since it has absolutely nothing to do with the discussion in this thread.

"It's OK that Obama sucks, and lied, and is sending MORE troops into combat - because I really hate Bush". Truly pathetic.

markymark69
07-21-2009, 07:28 PM
Epic that it's so full of false statements, it's not even worth responding to.

Just another "Obama can f*ck up all he wants, because I hate Bush more" rant.

...answer it honestly....did Bush lie to get elected? Yes or no. Its simple question.


I suspect you are just a partisan hack Nutsy.....

markymark69
07-21-2009, 07:32 PM
When all else fails, just pull the "Neo-Con! Neo-Con! Neo-Con!" attack card. I won't even address the "lying to start a war" bull****, since it has absolutely nothing to do with the discussion in this thread.

"It's OK that Obama sucks, and lied, and is sending MORE troops into combat - because I really hate Bush". Truly pathetic.

Odd you should say that...because in another thread you brought up Obama when it was off topic.

So you wont address it when its Bush...but you will address it when its Obama?

Kane_89
07-21-2009, 07:36 PM
When all else fails, just pull the "Neo-Con! Neo-Con! Neo-Con!" attack card. I won't even address the "lying to start a war" bull****, since it has absolutely nothing to do with the discussion in this thread.

"It's OK that Obama sucks, and lied, and is sending MORE troops into combat - because I really hate Bush". Truly pathetic.

actually, i like Bush, he just ****ed up as Pres.

fyi, Cheney admitted that there were no WMD's...so actually, yea he did lie.

Obama promised more troops in Afghanistan during the campaign

and getting butthurt over something as simple like a withdrawal date is kinda funny.

vref
07-21-2009, 07:40 PM
I thought the military couldn't get enough people for its current operations, let alone increasing them.

I have a friend who was a company commander, and filling several other billets, as a 2LT.

nutsy54
07-21-2009, 07:50 PM
...answer it honestly....did Bush lie to get elected? Yes or no. Its simple question.

I suspect you are just a partisan hack Nutsy.....Yes, because all the times I've disagreed with and attacked Bush policies prove that I do nothing but praise him. You guys need to get out of the mindset that "disagreeing with Obama" automatically means "blindly support Bush" :rolleyes:

You get this one off-topic reply, and I can't even answer because I don't have a clue what you're pretending he lied about. In 2004, he told us he'd stay in Iraq as long as necessary, or until the Iraqi government asked/told us to leave. That's exactly what happened.

He told use he'd Veto any stem cell legislation. And that's exactly what he did.

He told us he would cut taxes in 2000. And he did.

On most major issues, he stated his position, then he did it when in office. (Clearly statements made before the 9/11 attacks, and actions afterwards are a completely different situation).

So far, Obama (the actual topic of this thread, and the only topic I'll continue replying on) has clearly lied about:
- Immediate withdrawal from Iraq
- "Bringing our troops home" (tens of thousands more are in combat today than when he took office)
- Eliminating deficits and reducing the debt
- Making the tough budget decisions
- Removing lobbyists from government
- Having "the most ethical administration in history" (how many tax cheats are on the Cabinet?)
- Providing (and listening to) five days of public comment before signing bills
- Vetoing bills with earmarks
- Paying for all the new programs with savings from ending the Iraq war
- Closing Gitmo (oops, that "study" is delayed another six months)
- Not increasing taxes on most citizens - except now, all those who use energy or health care or cigarettes

If the only way to defend Obama is to say "Well, Bush did it, too..." That's not really helping your case, is it? This thread is about President Obama. Not what any of his predecessors did. This administration was supposed to be about Change!

nutsy54
07-21-2009, 07:53 PM
I thought the military couldn't get enough people for its current operations, let alone increasing them.You thought (or heard) wrong. Recruiting and retention numbers are through the roof. Yes, largely due to the economy - but they were consistently strong even before that.

nutsy54
07-21-2009, 08:03 PM
actually, i like Bush, he just ****ed up as Pres.

fyi, Cheney admitted that there were no WMD's...so actually, yea he did lie.Stating it afterwards when more data was available, and knowingly presenting falsified data beforehand, are two completely different things. Especially since WMDs were a small portion of the overall justification. Please, tell us - how did Bush manage to create complete intelligence briefings to Congress that were filled with these "lies"? Never-mind. Because this thread is about President Obama, and I promise to stop taking the blame detours you keep opening up.

Obama promised more troops in Afghanistan during the campaignYes, he did. And he's following through on that promise. For someone who decries the number of casualties we've had, you should be absolutely outraged at the results that's produced (have you seen the casualty statistics under President Obama?) What happened to "Bringing our troops home"?

and getting butthurt over something as simple like a withdrawal date is kinda funny.If he had kept his promise, 56,000 troops would already be out of Iraq. Look at the thread title, then look at that number. Then tell me if we'd really need 22,000 more Soldiers - if he had kept his promise.

Stop pretending this is only about a "withdrawal date". It's about his politically motivated, absolute LIE, just to get himself elected. How many times does this need to be said? He didn't just change his plans a little bit - he completely scrapped them, and continued doing exactly what Bush had negotiated.

markymark69
07-21-2009, 08:11 PM
*snipped*


Amazing...Bush was such an honorable man...he didnt lie to get elected. He didnt state things and then do completely the opposite when elected.


On most major issues, he stated his position, then he did it when in office.
hmm...
didn't he lie and say he would overhaul medicare...
Didnt he lie and say he would overhaul social security..
didnt he lie and say he would privatize social security accounts and give the money back to the people..to create an ownership society?
Didnt he lie about a missile defense system?
Didnt he lie about HMO patients' bill of rights?
Didnt he lie about Nation Building?
Didnt he lie about reduced government?
Didnt he lie and vow to put Medicare on "firm financial ground"?
Didnt he lie and say he would reform the tax code?
Didnt he lie and say he would make health insurance affordable for hardworking low-income families?

Oh he did veto stem cell research....and cut taxes...

At least you did confirm you are a partisan hack....

Boxman
07-22-2009, 07:31 AM
Is it not ironic that most of the people complaining Obama's not withdrawing our forces from Iraq fast enough... are the same people who wanted us to invade Iraq and occupy the country indefinitely, back when the Bush administration said so.

I also find it ironic that you guys are complaining about Obama increasing the US mission in Afghanistan. What, you suddenly became a bunch of peaceniks? You dipsh*ts had no problem with Bush invading a country that did absolutely nothing to threaten our security, and now you rail against Obama trying to defeat the people that killed 3000 of your countrymen?

And by the way, Obama always said he would step up the war in Afghanistan, so you can't complain he lied about that.

The utter hypocrisy being demonstrated here, robs all of you of any credibility you might have had, which wasn't much to begin with...

markymark69
07-22-2009, 10:34 AM
So far, Obama (the actual topic of this thread, and the only topic I'll continue replying on)

Dude...you are a joke.
You whine and cry about threads going off topic...but any topic unrelated to Obama...if another poster mentions Obama....you launch into a diatribe about Obama...

You really should change your name to ObamaDerangementSyndrome54


I'll tell you what Nutsy..I'll start a thread about Bush Lying to get elected and we can debate it....will you join it?
Im suspecting not....just like you left teh debate about CRA. once the facts contradict your world view..you leave the thread to never return.

OatsandSteak
07-22-2009, 10:39 AM
Is it not ironic that most of the people complaining Obama's not withdrawing our forces from Iraq fast enough... are the same people who wanted us to invade Iraq and occupy the country indefinitely, back when the Bush administration said so.

I also find it ironic that you guys are complaining about Obama increasing the US mission in Afghanistan. What, you suddenly became a bunch of peaceniks? You dipsh*ts had no problem with Bush invading a country that did absolutely nothing to threaten our security, and now you rail against Obama trying to defeat the people that killed 3000 of your countrymen?

And by the way, Obama always said he would step up the war in Afghanistan, so you can't complain he lied about that.

The utter hypocrisy being demonstrated here, robs all of you of any credibility you might have had, which wasn't much to begin with...

Agreed. While it is not a large number of people in this section who are doing it, I definitely have seen people attacking Obama, yet supported the war effort. Obama lying seems like a moot point if you supported the war in the first place.

markymark69
07-22-2009, 10:46 AM
Stating it afterwards when more data was available, and knowingly presenting falsified data beforehand, are two completely different things. Especially since WMDs were a small portion of the overall justification.

Oh really ODS54?

:24 seconds
GKlVnR7yz_E


Your statements are why people treat you as a Bush nuthugger, afflicted with ODS.

Halfway
07-22-2009, 12:42 PM
...answer it honestly....did Bush lie to get elected? Yes or no. Its simple question.


I suspect you are just a partisan hack Nutsy.....

Bush campaigned as a small-government, non interventionist conservative in '99, I would say he maybe stretched the truth somewhat.

I wish I'd bookmarked his '99 debate vid on youtube, it made him sound like Ron Paul jnr. Funny how things work out, isn't it?

Barry's whole gimmick was that the Dear Leader was cut from a different cloth and would never lie, obstruct or mislead the American people.

Nagalfar
07-22-2009, 12:45 PM
Oh really ODS54?

:24 seconds
GKlVnR7yz_E


Your statements are why people treat you as a Bush nuthugger, afflicted with ODS.

See the part your conveniently IGNORING, democrat's called for war with Iraq, Clinton's, both of them, most of Reps, Senate and Congress, most everyone was onboard.. and on and on and on.. they are on the record supporting it, I posted links to all of their "attack Iraq now" speeches, even provided quotes from them on attacking Iraq...

How come those dont count? tell us why? why is this Bush's war, when 90+% of the Dems not only backed it, but called for immediate war with Iraq as well, we had Kennedy and Spector, calling for war with Iraq, hell even Barney Frank was for the war after he was against the war, how come those dont matter? why and/how is this Bush's war?

Nutsy is no more a fan of Bush than I or most clear thinking individuals are, we just hate one sided bullsh*t... and most of what is going is one sided bullsh*t... shall we count the objections to the war with Iraq? (there are very few of them) or how about we listen to the Dems who supported it and called for it, then quickly called it "Bush's War", that way no matter how it turned out, they could say, I supported it, or I spoke out against it.. typical Washington POS.. Typical of Americans, blind to see what their own "party" did, because they are to busy attacking the other one.. Washington counts on people like that.. that is exactly why there is a 2 party (actually one) system entrenched in America, they have a lock on it and its because of this one sided crap.. and why we the people are always the ones getting fu*cked by both of those parties..

BOTH Parties brought this war to us, lots of fiery speeches and rants.. to say anything other is a lie, and makes the user of the blame game a political hack..

nutsy54
07-22-2009, 01:53 PM
Is it not ironic that most of the people complaining Obama's not withdrawing our forces from Iraq fast enough... are the same people who wanted us to invade Iraq and occupy the country indefinitely, back when the Bush administration said so.Reading Comprehension 101: We're not complaining about staying in Iraq (strangely enough, even the Democrats & Liberals are silent on that point). We're pointing out his LIES. Saying what the voters want to hear, purely for political gain, then turning around and thumbing his nose at the country. How many times does that need to be repeated?

I also find it ironic that you guys are complaining about Obama increasing the US mission in Afghanistan. What, you suddenly became a bunch of peaceniks? You dipsh*ts had no problem with Bush invading a country that did absolutely nothing to threaten our security, and now you rail against Obama trying to defeat the people that killed 3000 of your countrymen? Again... Not complaining about Afghanistan. But certainly wondering why everyone who was radically opposed to wars and casualties before January 21st now stands idly by, watching expanded wars and more casualties. That would be the "Hypocrisy" you mention below. Stop pretending that we're making statements... which haven't been made.

And by the way, Obama always said he would step up the war in Afghanistan, so you can't complain he lied about that.I have clearly stated that it's one of the few things he actually told the truth about.

The utter hypocrisy being demonstrated here, robs all of you of any credibility you might have had, which wasn't much to begin with...As covered above, the true hypocrisy is clear:

- Why was it critical to get our troops out of Iraq up until six months ago, but now the anti-war crowd has a muted response to our continued, absolutely unchanged presence?

- Why was combat and causalities and death a horrible disaster under Bush - But now is unquestioned, as Obama simply keeps a rare campaign promise?

- Why did many of the most vocal anti-war opponents on this board suddenly become silent on January 21st - even though the only real Change has been more troops into combat - with all the results that normally entails. Followed now, by a need for 22,000 more Soldiers. We were supposed to be saving massive amounts of money by ending these wars - not maintaining and expanding them.

MistaO
07-22-2009, 01:56 PM
On yahoo today:

Obama to have troops out by end of 2011. Not his original promise but maybe he'll keep it!!!

nutsy54
07-22-2009, 02:04 PM
On yahoo today:

Obama to have troops out by end of 2011. Not his original promise but maybe he'll keep it!!!He has to keep it - That's the date, negotiated & agreed to with the Iraqi government, for withdrawal of all our troops. Of course, it wasn't negotiated by this Administration...

JBDW
07-22-2009, 02:11 PM
I'd say either one is damning.

He either lied to the American public, using our Soldier's lives as pawns to get himself elected - or he had no clue what the hell he was talking about, planning, and promising with the focal point of his campaign, before everyone started staring at the economy.

This isn't a "change in strategy" brought about by events - Because Iraq today is in Far Better condition than when Obama first started making these promises (thanks, of course, to the Surge which he vocally opposed). If anything, there's only justification to move faster, not slower, based on current conditions.

Instead, he's continuing on the exact schedule negotiated by the Bush administration, hasn't brought a single troop home yet, and is continuing new deployments. Yet all those who hated the war up until January 21st are now thunderously silent.

This. Times however many times it takes to let the message sink in.

Even though it's hardly surprising when a politician lies to get himself into office, it's still disgusting when it actually happens.

Stizzel
07-22-2009, 03:51 PM
Is it not ironic that most of the people complaining Obama's not withdrawing our forces from Iraq fast enough... are the same people who wanted us to invade Iraq and occupy the country indefinitely, back when the Bush administration said so.


The pro war types havn't stopped being pro war. They're just pointing out that Obama lied. What is so hard to understand about that?

And again before you point out that Bush did the same thing, yes, Bush lied about being anti war too. He had strong rhetoric against nation building and having Americans die for other countries.

99% of the time the message you're reading as "Bush was better than Obama" is actually "Bush is the same as Obama". Re-read in that light. Nothing that Obama is doing is surprising when you consider the general disease we know as politics; the goal in comments like the one you're replying to is to end the asinine, near-religious love affair many have with Obama that doesn't seem to waiver no matter how many times he stabs you in the back.

Bush bots put up with it for 8 years, take a lesson from them. They didn't start waking up until near the end of Bush's second term. Do you want to be just as bad as they were? If so you have no room to judge them harshly.

Decoy Octopus
07-22-2009, 04:35 PM
He has to keep it - That's the date, negotiated & agreed to with the Iraqi government, for withdrawal of all our troops. Of course, it wasn't negotiated by this Administration...

See you just dont like him I can tell by your post. I know Bush was way more military friendly but your behavior is still unacceptable.

markymark69
07-23-2009, 11:17 AM
Bush campaigned as a small-government, non interventionist conservative in '99, I would say he maybe stretched the truth somewhat.

I wish I'd bookmarked his '99 debate vid on youtube, it made him sound like Ron Paul jnr. Funny how things work out, isn't it?

Barry's whole gimmick was that the Dear Leader was cut from a different cloth and would never lie, obstruct or mislead the American people.

Like all politicians...he used a shtick to get elected. Once a politician gets to the national level he or she will suck a d!ck in times square to get elected.

It never ceases to amuse me when I hear people say [insert their favorite candidate name] is a moral person, didnt lie to get into office, etc.

markymark69
07-23-2009, 11:21 AM
See the part your conveniently IGNORING, democrat's called for war with Iraq, Clinton's, both of them, most of Reps, Senate and Congress, most everyone was onboard.. and on and on and on.. they are on the record supporting it, I posted links to all of their "attack Iraq now" speeches, even provided quotes from them on attacking Iraq...

How come those dont count? tell us why? why is this Bush's war, when 90+% of the Dems not only backed it, but called for immediate war with Iraq as well, we had Kennedy and Spector, calling for war with Iraq, hell even Barney Frank was for the war after he was against the war, how come those dont matter? why and/how is this Bush's war?

Nutsy is no more a fan of Bush than I or most clear thinking individuals are, we just hate one sided bullsh*t... and most of what is going is one sided bullsh*t... shall we count the objections to the war with Iraq? (there are very few of them) or how about we listen to the Dems who supported it and called for it, then quickly called it "Bush's War", that way no matter how it turned out, they could say, I supported it, or I spoke out against it.. typical Washington POS.. Typical of Americans, blind to see what their own "party" did, because they are to busy attacking the other one.. Washington counts on people like that.. that is exactly why there is a 2 party (actually one) system entrenched in America, they have a lock on it and its because of this one sided crap.. and why we the people are always the ones getting fu*cked by both of those parties..

BOTH Parties brought this war to us, lots of fiery speeches and rants.. to say anything other is a lie, and makes the user of the blame game a political hack..

You missed my point. I personally dont care why we went to war with Iraq. I was pointing out the fact that all politicians lie to get elected. A politician will say anything to get elected.


I linked the video only to show to Nutsy that his own propaganda is incorrect. He stated WMD's were a small part of the reason for the Iraq invasion. Bush disagrees with that statement.

Whenever Nutsy is confronted with facts that disagree with his worldview..he ignores them.

markymark69
07-23-2009, 11:25 AM
- Why was it critical to get our troops out of Iraq up until six months ago, but now the anti-war crowd has a muted response to our continued, absolutely unchanged presence?

- Why was combat and causalities and death a horrible disaster under Bush - But now is unquestioned, as Obama simply keeps a rare campaign promise?

- Why did many of the most vocal anti-war opponents on this board suddenly become silent on January 21st - even though the only real Change has been more troops into combat - with all the results that normally entails. Followed now, by a need for 22,000 more Soldiers. We were supposed to be saving massive amounts of money by ending these wars - not maintaining and expanding them.


Why do you care so much about the actions & thoughts of the anti-war crowd?

nutsy54
07-23-2009, 01:30 PM
Why do you care so much about the actions & thoughts of the anti-war crowd?Because his position, and their support, significantly helped get President Obama elected.

How successful would he have been... If he had actually told the truth about his plans for the last two years?

nutsy54
07-23-2009, 01:39 PM
I linked the video only to show to Nutsy that his own propaganda is incorrect. He stated WMD's were a small part of the reason for the Iraq invasion. Bush disagrees with that statement.

Whenever Nutsy is confronted with facts that disagree with his worldview..he ignores them.You're joking, right? Nearly two minutes of carefully edited videos, collected across several years of quotes, interviews, and speeches - and only one sentence addressed WMDs. That's your proof? You need to read the 2002 Joint Resolution again, if you honestly believe that WMDs were the only reason Congress authorized military action.

Now, I've completely lost track of how that applies to President Obama's lies about ending the war in Iraq, and the subsequent need to add 22,000 active duty Soldiers, to properly man all the additional combat roles he's requiring of our military.

jmonty
07-23-2009, 01:52 PM
See you just dont like him I can tell by your post. I know Bush was way more military friendly but your behavior is still unacceptable.

wut?

markymark69
07-23-2009, 01:58 PM
You're joking, right? Nearly two minutes of carefully edited videos, collected across several years of quotes, interviews, and speeches - and only one sentence addressed WMDs. That's your proof?

Proof? The POTUS said the main reason we invaded Iraq was because of WMD's.
It came from his own mouth...on that video at 24 seconds. His statement was clear and concise.

...maybe he lied when he made that statement on national TV.

markymark69
07-23-2009, 02:03 PM
Because his position, and their support, significantly helped get President Obama elected.

How successful would he have been... If he had actually told the truth about his plans for the last two years?

Who knows and who cares....He is already elected. You sit alone at night worrying about the thought process of the anti-war crowd...

You are no different than the guys on here still stuck worrying about Bush.

Anti-war crowd:
Bush LIED!!! He TRICKED us!!

Nutsy54:
Obama LIED! He TRICKED us!!

nutsy54
07-23-2009, 02:06 PM
Proof?http://www.c-span.org/resources/pdf/hjres114.pdf


The POTUS said the main reason we invaded Iraq was because of WMD's.
It came from his own mouth...on that video at 24 seconds. His statement was clear and concise.Convenient that you fixate on one sentence, and ignore every other statement made by him in that video - which represents less than two minutes out of several years.

And what does this have to with the the thread topic: Obama's lies, resulting in our need for 22,000 additional active duty Soldiers to fight all of HIS wars? We're going in circles on this detour, so it would be really cool to get back and address the OP's discussion point. (Which has absolutely nothing to do with Bush).

pittbleauxs
07-23-2009, 02:09 PM
changing your position on something is admirable if you are doing so because you honestly believe it is the correct thing to do. it IS a "change" from anything we have seen in the last eight years.

hayseeds actually seem to ADMIRE the fact that dubya "stuck to his guns," and didn't back down even when it was clear that his policies were an abject failure. to me, this is not a sign of "strength," but rather one of arrogance and childishness. i welcome a politician who can have the common sense to change his polices if he thinks that it is the right move.

nutsy54
07-23-2009, 02:17 PM
changing your position on something is admirable if you are doing so because you honestly believe it is the correct thing to do. it IS a "change" from anything we have seen in the last eight years.

hayseeds actually seem to ADMIRE the fact that dubya "stuck to his guns," and didn't back down even when it was clear that his policies were an abject failure. to me, this is not a sign of "strength," but rather one of arrogance and childishness. i welcome a politician who can have the common sense to change his polices if he thinks that it is the right move.If Obama's Change had been based on some change in the situation in Iraq, then it would be understandable and possibly defensible. But the only change in Iraq since he first started touting his plan.... Has been a dramatic improvement in the situation. All the more reason for our forces to be able to leave even earlier.

Instead, he's following the exact same timeline established by the much-attacked and vilified Bush administration. Exactly how is that considered Change?

Boxman
07-23-2009, 06:02 PM
Obama's lies, resulting in our need for 22,000 additional active duty Soldiers to fight all of HIS wars? We're going in circles on this detour, so it would be really cool to get back and address the OP's discussion point. (Which has absolutely nothing to do with Bush).

HIS wars? What wars did Obama start? And by the way, the 22,000 troops aren't for Iraq (which is what you've been whining about this entire thread). The troop increase is for Afghanistan, the war we should have been fighting all along, and which everyone agrees we need to win.

You want to bitch about something, why don't you bitterly complain how Bush sabotaged our chances of winning in Afghanistan for 7 years by diverting our military resources towards Iraq? How many American soldiers will now die unneccesarily fighting a Taliban insurgency that Bush happily allowed to rebuild, regroup, and mulitply for 7 years? And what of the 4400 US troops that Bush already sacrificed unneccesarily in Iraq? If you really care about the military, you should be furious about all this.

But you're not, of course.

All your hypocritical and nitpicking talk merely exposes you and your buddies for the utter frauds that you are.

nutsy54
07-23-2009, 07:21 PM
HIS wars? What wars did Obama start? And by the way, the 22,000 troops aren't for Iraq (which is what you've been whining about this entire thread). The troop increase is for Afghanistan, the war we should have been fighting all along, and which everyone agrees we need to win. Barack Obama is the President now. They most certainly are his wars - especially since he has decided to continue one, and expand another.

Why would we need to increase the size of the Army by 22,000 for Afghanistan... If Obama had kept his campaign promise and already withdrawn 56,000 from Iraq by now?

The point of this thread is Obama's lies getting us to where we are today. We need a larger military, because instead of reducing wars as promised, he's expanding them.

markymark69
07-23-2009, 08:47 PM
http://www.c-span.org/resources/pdf/hjres114.pdf

Convenient that you fixate on one sentence,

Would you like a transcript of what Bush said during the press conference?
He said the main reason we invaded was because of WMD's.

I guess he was lying when he made that statement or grossly incompetent. Why are you making excuses for his statement? I could care less what his reasons were or what he said.
You are the one that seems really upset he made that statement that contradicts what you stated.

markymark69
07-23-2009, 08:54 PM
http://www.c-span.org/resources/pdf/hjres114.pdf

Convenient that you fixate on one sentence, and ignore every other statement made by him in that video - which represents less than two minutes out of several years.

And what does this have to with the the thread topic: Obama's lies, resulting in our need for 22,000 additional active duty Soldiers to fight all of HIS wars? We're going in circles on this detour, so it would be really cool to get back and address the OP's discussion point. (Which has absolutely nothing to do with Bush).

Convenient you fixate on taxes and stem cell research vetos...when

he lied and said he would overhaul medicare...
he lied and said he would overhaul social security..
he lied and said he would privatize social security accounts and give the money back to the people..to create an ownership society?
he lied about a missile defense system?
he lied about HMO patients' bill of rights?
he lied about Nation Building?
he lied about reduced government?
he lied and vow to put Medicare on "firm financial ground"?
he lied and said he would reform the tax code?
he lied and said he would make health insurance affordable for hardworking low-income families?


Im not defending Obama...I just find arguing with you highly amusing.
You exposed yourself as merely a partisan hack when you said Bush kept most of his campaign promises (and therefore insinuating he did not lie to get elected)

People on here may think I am arrogant or a dick...but one thing I am not: Im not a nut hugger when it comes to politicians...whether they have a (D) or an (R)

fatjerk76
07-24-2009, 12:02 AM
Yes We Can!