In case you haven't noticed, Obama is about to lose Iraq

Sorry, WTF didn't make a good post, he advanced a strawman. He addressed an argument that I didn't make, because he knew that he couldn't stand a chance against the argument that I actually made. It would've helped if he contained his control and anger issues and actually read what was written, instead of emotionally coming up with responses to what he thought I said.

Perhaps you could help him with the questions that I asked him.

Now, to address your other inaccuracies.

Bush lowered taxes to get the economic engine running again, that was a necessity. That surplus that you talked about existed because of a Republican Congress. Congress has the power of the purse. Per the Constitution, congress manages taxes and they manage the budget.

Clinton and the other Democrats wanted to spend like drunken sailors, the Republican majority cattle prodded both into reducing their urge to spend, into agreeing with reduced spending, and into focusing on paying down the debt.

You could thank the Republican Congress for giving us that surplus.

Also, that surplus simply meant that we were spending less than what we were taking in. The debt still existed under the Clinton Administration.

The 9/11 attacks woke this country up to the reality that there was an entity waging a deadly war against us, that surplus disappearing in the face of that threat, and a poor economy, was a necessity.

Also, the deficit went down from 2003 to 2007, when both the Iraq and Afghanistan Wars were going on. We still had the tax cuts during that time. Raising taxes when the economy is poor is equivalent to taking laxatives to prevent diarrhea. Raising taxes generally leads to reduced incentives to spend money. Lowering taxes generally leads to greater incentives to earning more money and to spending it.

Also, the invasion of Iraq took place in 2003, and the pullout took place in 2011. That doesn't look like "12 plus years" to me. You blame the Iraq government for not being able to defend itself, but give a pass to the administration that failed them, and that failed to capitalize on the success that we handed to them.

Had Obama truly wanted a SOFA, we would've had one, and we would've been able to stay behind to provide further training and assistance.

Also, the Iraqi military HAS repelled ISIS in many areas in Iraq. The government is inside a location that ISIS can't penetrate. Originally Posted by herfacechair

Good discussion and thanks for serving.

Clinton and the republican congress had more tax revenue coming in. Bush 1 raised the tax rates, the tax rate percentages in all 7 tax brackets were higher. Clinton kept these same rates. For example the rate in the highest bracket was 39%. Clinton did not have any wars to deal with or any major entitlements to implement. This helped lead to a surplus at the end of Clinton's term.

According to charts below, the debt did increase between 2003 and 2007. You have any links to show that the debt went down between 2003 and 2007?

Yes, we pulled out in 2011, but didn't we leave 5,000 boots on the ground? If so, that would make it 11 plus years of having more than a 1,000 soldiers being there. If the Iraq government can protect itself without outside help, why are we sending in a small force of troops, sending the Navy, looking at possible Drone strikes for this new conflict?

True, you did not say Military State, but you did say "stay as long as it takes". Which costs money that has to be accounted for. The republicans want a balanced budget for each fiscal year. When there is no budget agreement we go into the sequester.

These charts from usgovenmentspending.com show the debt increased between 2003 and 2007.


Education
Defense
Military Welfare

Charts and Graphs


Debt
Chart Deficit
Chart Welfare
Chart Pie
Chart Chart
Wizard


Contact
Spending
Charts
Budget
Charts
Debt
Charts


Government Debt Chart Gallery


CREATE CUSTOM CHART | CHART WIZARD | DEBT NUMBERS


Total
Federal



Total Debt

Click here to customize chart and view data

Federal Debt

True, you did not say Military State, but you did say "stay as long as it takes". Which costs money that has to be accounted for.

Originally Posted by flghtr65

This neocon is nothing more than another welfare cry baby wanting a share of the tax receipts for his pet projects...which is basically nation building. The problem herface is to ignorant to see that nation building is a liberal notion that never works in the long run. Even Germany and Japan have hurt us because we have to account for the Defense money they do not have to spend because of the US. They are able to spend that savings on their citizens healthcare. So for the longest our corporations and citizens taxes have went to help Japan and Germany and the bunch while they have been able to skate. This liberal policy has benefited a select few in our society. The Oil industry, The Defense Industry....Guess which one herface is defending?

Lets call a spade a spade...herface is promoting a liberal policy. He is a Liberal wolf dressed in conservative sheep face.

We have bankrolled the rest of the worlds Defense needs for to long....

If there was another reason used more to invade Iraq during the spring of 2003 than WMD's, please let me know. Otherwise do us all a favor and STFU! Originally Posted by bigtex

You're all wet again, BigKotex: the BUTTer Bar ASShat. Once again, you've *jumped* to the wrong conclusion, BigKotex: the BUTTer Bar ASShat.

Here's the other already enumerated reasons, BigKotex: the BUTTer Bar ASShat.

Authorization for Use of Military Force Against Iraq Resolution of 2002

Joint Resolution

To authorize the use of United States Armed Forces against Iraq.
Whereas in 1990 in response to Iraq’s war of aggression against and illegal occupation of Kuwait, the United States forged a coalition of nations to liberate Kuwait and its people in order to defend the national security of the United States and enforce United Nations Security Council resolutions relating to Iraq;

Whereas after the liberation of Kuwait in 1991, Iraq entered into a United Nations sponsored cease-fire agreement pursuant to which Iraq unequivocally agreed….

Whereas in the Authorization for Use of Military Force Against Iraq Resolution (Public Law 102-1), Congress has authorized the President ‘to use United States Armed Forces pursuant to United Nations Security Council Resolution 678 (1990) in order to achieve implementation of Security Council Resolution 660, 661, 662, 664, 665, 666, 667, 669, 670, 674, and 677’;

Whereas in December 1991, Congress expressed its sense that it ‘supports the use of all necessary means to achieve the goals of United Nations Security Council Resolution 687 as being consistent with the Authorization of Use of Military Force Against Iraq Resolution (Public Law 102-1),’ that Iraq’s repression of its civilian population violates United Nations Security Council Resolution 688 and ‘constitutes a continuing threat to the peace, security, and stability of the Persian Gulf region,’ and that Congress, ‘supports the use of all necessary means to achieve the goals of United Nations Security Council Resolution 688’;

Whereas the Iraq Liberation Act of 1998 (Public Law 105-338) expressed the sense of Congress that it should be the policy of the United States to support efforts to remove from power the current Iraqi regime and promote the emergence of a democratic government to replace that regime….

SECTION 1. SHORT TITLE.

This joint resolution may be cited as the ‘Authorization for Use of Military Force Against Iraq Resolution of 2002’.

SEC. 2. SUPPORT FOR UNITED STATES DIPLOMATIC EFFORTS.

The Congress of the United States supports the efforts by the President to--

(1) strictly enforce through the United Nations Security Council all relevant Security Council resolutions regarding Iraq and encourages him in those efforts; and

(2) obtain prompt and decisive action by the Security Council to ensure that Iraq abandons its strategy of delay, evasion and noncompliance and promptly and strictly complies with all relevant Security Council resolutions regarding Iraq.

https://www.govtrack.us/congress/bil.../hjres114/text

So STFU, BigKotex: the BUTTer Bar ASShat.

Here is the one big failing of your whole argument. You are assuming that the US forces can defeat this new ISIS militia. Only militias from the Shiite & Kurdish side can counter, not "trained" armies... 1300 y. ago, same spot & situation, Heracles used Arab tribes: "Only a diamond can cut a diamond". Originally Posted by BigLouie

U.S. forces CAN knock out any and all tanks being used by ISIS, BL, and given half a chance, it can lop off ISIS' head: Abu Bakr al-Baghdad. BTW, it was Muhammad and his followers who conquered that region 1300 years ago -- and they led armies that would eventually destroy Byzantium -- the Roman Empire in the East.

Chimpaholic retard you are the DMFOTB. You are the documented "babbling buffoon"
Originally Posted by i'va biggen

Since you are too fucking stupid to answer the last question, Ekim the inbred Chimp, what say you answer this question: Why does Odumbo need boots on the ground in Iraq if Al-Qaeda is "decimated and on the run", Ekim the Inbred Chimp?

Why does Odumbo need boots on the ground in Iraq if Al-Qaeda is "decimated and on the run", ? Originally Posted by I B Hankering

I can answer that IB..."Because that lying cocksucker was trying to get reelected!"

Tis the difference between Politics and Realpolitik.

You're all wet again, BigKotex: the BUTTer Bar ASShat. Once again, you've *jumped* to the wrong conclusion, BigKotex: the BUTTer Bar ASShat.

Here's the other already enumerated reasons, BigKotex: the BUTTer Bar ASShat.



So STFU, BigKotex: the BUTTer Bar ASShat.


U.S. forces CAN knock out any and all tanks being used by ISIS, BL, and given half a chance, it can lop off ISIS' head: Abu Bakr al-Baghdad. BTW, it was Muhammad and his followers who conquered that region 1300 years ago -- and they led armies that would eventually destroy Byzantium -- the Roman Empire in the East.



Since you are too fucking stupid to answer the last question, Ekim the inbred Chimp, what say you answer this question: Why does Odumbo need boots on the ground in Iraq if Al-Qaeda is "decimated and on the run", Ekim the Inbred Chimp? Originally Posted by I B Hankering

Since I answered the last question chimp-o-matic, and you are too dumb to comprehend Why should I answer this one? It will fall on a idiot. Your simple flailing around with your big fonts is reeking of desperation.

I can answer that IB..."Because that lying cocksucker was trying to get reelected!"

Tis the difference between Politics and Realpolitik. Originally Posted by WTF

And now we have to listen to the "lying NONcocksucker" ...

...... who is "trying to get ELECTED in 2016!

Something like "those 5 guys are not a threat to the United States"!

And now we have to listen to the "lying NONcocksucker" ...

...... who is "trying to get ELECTED in 2016!

Something like "those 5 guys are not a threat to the United States"! Originally Posted by LexusLover

Jesus Christ , for someone that points out others not sticking to the subject matter....you sure the fuck change the subject matter quite a bit.

Jesus Christ , for someone that points out others not sticking to the subject matter....you sure the fuck change the subject matter quite a bit. Originally Posted by WTF

LexiLiar, The Patriarch of the Notorious Idiot Klan, errrr Clan has always taught his faithful Klan, errrr Clan to adhere to the basic principle of "do as I say, not as I do."

That way he always has the luxury to change the facts to fit any situation. It's much less messy that way! And more importantly, it doesn't take a whole lot of thought.

Jesus Christ , for someone that points out others not sticking to the subject matter....you sure the fuck change the subject matter quite a bit. Originally Posted by WTF

You brought up "trying to get elected" ... and "LYING" TO DO SO!

Which has nothing to do with losing Iraq ... BTW.

If you wish to be JD'S butt boy that is you choice. Originally Posted by i'va biggen

You made similar supporting posts in response to other people that have argued on your side of the argument. You have no legs to stand on when accusing me, or anybody else, of being anybody's butt boy when you do to exact same thing with others on your side of the argument.

JD previously indicated that he deployed to the Persian Gulf, during the Persian Gulf War. I combat deployed to Iraq during Operation Iraqi Freedom. One common trend that you would see on this thread is that both JD and I are on the same side of the argument. I pointed that fact out.

Just as I can make a post disagreeing with you, and others on your side of the argument, I could easily make a post supporting others on my side of the argument.

You're actually attacking an action that I've seen you take on this and on other threads.

You took each of my comments regardless of the content or who's stupid remark they were addressed to then went on your anti democrat rant. Typical stupid right wing ploy. I did not lose anything you just displayed your bias. Originally Posted by i'va biggen

Your responses to my posts are typical of that of somebody who has set stress shields up. Intellectually, you know that your argument got destroyed. To add damage to injury, you had to see every one of your arguments, that I addressed, destroyed.

You dismiss the other side of the argument as making stupid remarks, but you failed to prove them wrong. When you failed to prove the other side wrong, you do not have a leg to stand on telling them that they are making stupid remarks.

Your posts, as well as that of other posters on your side of the argument, insinuated that the Republicans were to blame. You guys argued that President Bush should not have engaged in what you guys considered an "ill-advised" action. You guys were gloating over this crisis as if you guys are saying, "Ah Ha, I told you so!" I countered your side of the argument's argument by pointing the finger at the group of people that are actually to be blamed. I also pointed out the fact that we secured victory for the United States. It was up to Washington DC to have the political will to develop and further what we secured.

Bottom line, my responses addressed the anti-conservative/anti-Republican propaganda that your side of the argument was advancing.

You win an argument by advancing the facts, and arguments based on reason, facts, and logic. You advanced this argument in the face of the opposition's failure to prove you wrong. You, and those that are arguing on your side of the argument, have seriously failed to prove our side's argument wrong.

Even now, you consistently insist on attacking me, as well as making assumptions about my actions, instead of attempting to argue against my argument. Your tactics are typical of those tactics taken by the losing side of the argument.

Intellectually, you see that your side of the argument is getting destroyed. Your excessive pride; however, refuses to see that. It drives you plow on into a losing fight. You, and those who are arguing on your side of the argument, remind me of the black night in this video:

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=zKhEw7nD9C4

As far as your deployment I thanked you for serving like a lot of us have as where I really don't give a shit. Originally Posted by i'va biggen

You're deliberately missing the point behind my mentioning the fact that I've been to Iraq. That deployment gives me a first-hand account of what goes on in that country. I've seen the dynamics that goes on in that country that doesn't get captured in the news.

In other words, I have a better vantage point over your side of the argument when it comes to this very topic. This is a damaging fact for those on your side of the argument. JD and I are war veterans from the conflicts in that area. So far, nobody on your side of the argument has stepped forward and answered my question about serving in Iraq and in what capacity.

This tells me that you guys are arguing based on third and fourth hand information. Based on what I've seen, you guys are advancing the very arguments that the tinfoil hat wearing crowd on the left advance.

Your side of the argument doesn't want to care about the fact that JD and I have a first-hand perspective on this topic, because it gives us credibility in this argument as opposed to your side of the arguments lack of credibility.

As for your bias and silly right wing talking points you lost credibility. Originally Posted by i'va biggen

This is another tactic that the left wingers like to use, accusing the opposition of displaying the very traits that these left wingers display. Your arguments, as well as those that are arguing on this thread on your side of the argument, show left wing talking points and bias.

Again, I'll live done was put things in proper perspective based on the facts surrounding the argument. This has left you, and some of your allies, in the position of throwing accusations around as well as insults. Not much of an attempt to argue against our argument.

When you resort to attacks as a main thrust of your reply, you show that you've ran out of argument. Those with the facts on their side could continue to advance an argument. If anybody has lost credibility, it is you as well as the other posters on your side of the argument.

I will ask one question of your expertise .
If you and your team were in a firefight, and there was collateral damage.
Would you want to be answerable to the Iraq's and subject to their court system? Originally Posted by i'va biggen

Your question fails to capture the reality surrounding what's being argued about on this thread.

First, the Iraqis were willing to give us a SOFA agreement. Had the Obama administration been willing to work with the Iraqis, using channels that would've gotten his an SOFA agreement, we would've had that SOFA agreement.

The Iraqis wanted thousands of US troops to remain behind to train and continue to train the Iraqi forces. We were in a position of strength in that negotiation.

The question assumes a different reality than the one that was actually taken place on the ground.

Second, you're going to have collateral damage in a firefight. When there is property damage, there was compensation process. The Iraqis that had property destroyed as a result of a firefight, or as a result of negligence on the US military's part, were able to file a claim. Once an investigation proved that collateral damage happened as a result of a firefight where the rules of engagement were disregarded, or as a result of negligence, the Iraqi with a property damage grievance was able to get compensated.

A SOFA agreement would've allowed the US military to hold US service members accountable for negligent homicide on the battlefield. This would be applicable if the rules of engagement were violated, as a result of negligence, or as a result of deliberate acts of murder.

Third, we strictly abided by our rules of engagement. These rules of engagement called for engaging only the enemy. The vast majority of the Iraqi population understood that we strictly followed these rules of engagement. In fact, one of our interpreters related a discussion that he had with one of the local Iraqis.

These local Iraqis understood that if the coalition member shot you, it was because you were shooting at them. He contrasted that with what the terrorists would do. They'd Kill you regardless of whether you were there intended target or not.

The current administration had no desire to work with the Iraqi government to extend our SOFA agreement.

Therefore, your shotgun question, which doesn't capture the reality that we are arguing, isn't applicable.

"The argument for going to war in Iraq was clearly made. Over and over again, Saddam Hussein was said to be a turn-of-the-millennium Hitler, a madman bent on destroying America with his stockpiles of weapons of mass destruction. Of course, that turned out to be false, but at the time, the justification was no mystery."

"The word "weapons" shows up 1,107 times in the Congressional Record during the period when the House and Senate were voting to grant President George W. Bush the authority to use force against Iraq. The more specific "weapons of mass [destruction or murder]" comes up 368 times."

"The word "freedom" shows up 118 times in the Congressional Record during the authorization votes, but it's generally in reference to securing freedom for America, and only occasionally for Iraqis. The word "liberate" shows up 12 times. And that's mostly in reference to Kuwait."

See the trend here?

HENCE: Weapons of Mass Destruction! Originally Posted by bigtex

"If there was another reason used more to invade Iraq during the spring of 2003 than WMD's, please let me know. Otherwise do us all a favor and STFU!" -- bigtex (Emphasis mine)

What part of your OWN argument do you NOT understand? The thrust of your argument was that WMD was the ONLY reason for us going into Iraq, te wit:

"WMD's are brought up only because it was THE reason used by the Bush Administration to invade Iraq during the weeks and months leading up to the ill fated and ill advised spring of 2003 invasion of Iraq." -- bigtex (Empahsis mine)

Both statements imply that WMD was the ONLY reason for us going into Iraq. You further challenged the opposition to provide evidence that there was another reason. I helped him do that by linking to George Bush's own speeches. Your better came in and provided an official document.

Regardless of how many times WMD is mentioned in the documents and speeches that you reference, that doesn't dismiss the fact that you were WRONG by arguing that WMD was the ONLY reason for us going into Iraq.

So bigtex, were you wrong when you insisted that WMD was the ONLY reason for us going into Iraq? YES [ ] NO [ ]

Copy and paste that question, and answer options, to your reply. Put an "X" in the reply that represents your honest opinion. Don't add any further information to your reply.

Also, WMD were found in Iraq. Many of the IEDs used against the troops were laced with Sarin, Mustard, and Blister agents. In fact, prior to my going on R & R leave during my Iraq deployment, a couple of Iraqi security members in our AO suffered blister laced IED attacks.

Again, Sarin, blister, and mustard agents ARE weapons of mass destruction, and they were used against our forces post invasion. Many containers of these chemical agents were found in Iraq and dealt with by the US forces post invasion.

Anybody, Republican or Democrat, that states that there were "no" WMD in Iraq is simply wrong. Nowhere in this thread that I mentioned that the Republicans were right 100% of the time.

Your implication that I insinuated a single reason to going into Iraq was also in error, because my argument has been consistent that WMD, freedom, and other reasons were used for going into Iraq. I've made that argument since late 2003. Here's an argument I had against people advancing your argument back in 2006:

Herfacechair debate against YourThrone et al May, 2006:

YourThrone: C'mon man! the reason we went in Iraq from the start was because of 9/11 then it was because Saddam was a threat with weapons of mass destruction(Which was another lie) Then it was to free the Iraqi people from Saddam. how many reasons are there?

Not quite. First things first, it was named Operation Iraqi FREEDOM from the get go. There are several reasons for us going into Iraq. One of them, as both kenrug and I pointed out, was to eliminate a potential threat. After 9/11 happened, we could not afford to allow Sadman to continue to play games as he had been doing since the beginning of the cease fire.

Speaking of which, a cease fire is not a declaration of peace, but a temporary stop to a war. A war is put on temporary hold via a cease fire pending negotiations and/or the benefiting side carrying out its obligations. Iraq violated its part of the cease fire agreement, giving us every right to go in and invade the moment he made such violation.

Also, Saddam being a threat in terms of WMD was not a lie, nor is it a lie today. Only a limited area of Iraq was searched, you can't come up with a conclusion and blanket an entire country when a limited search turns up nothing.

In the US military, there is emergency evacuation and destruction in place to ensure that our sensitive weaponry does not get into enemy hands. It would be asinine to assume that the US is the only country in the world that has this, or that this practice is restricted to western nations. Every military in the world has these procedures; it is simple military common sense.

Additionally, according to the highest ranking Russian GRU officer to defect to the US, Colonal Stanislav Lunev, the Russians assisted Saddam's government in undermining the UN weapons inspection.

Plain and simple, whatever Sadman had in terms of sensitive weaponry was moved under emergency evacuation procedures.

There are numerous reasons to why we went into Iraq, and they were all tied together under asymmetrical warfare.

Notice how the guy uses almost the same wording that you use, and how my replies to him were almost the same as I've used against you. I wasn't joking when I told you guys in other threads here that I've argued against your positions before, and that I've always came out of a debate with the exact same argument that I had going into it.

Also, notice that I used Stanislav Lunev then as I used him on this thread. Here's General Georges Sadda's statement about that fact:

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=nrSl30UIPRs

You thought that nobody could find evidence that the Bush administration advanced other reasons for invading Iraq in addition to WMD. Your seeing articles that blatantly prove you wrong hammered your ego the wrong way. Your over exaggeration of the text in your post demonstrates how angry you were.

Your text over exaggerations gave me a good laugh because I knew that I got through your skin.

Yes, do you?


http://www.cnn.com/ALLPOLITICS/stori...s/clinton.html

"CLINTON: Good evening. (December 1998)

"Earlier today, I ordered America's armed forces to strike military and security targets in Iraq. They are joined by British forces. Their mission is to attack Iraq's nuclear, chemical and biological weapons programs and its military capacity to threaten its neighbors.

"Their purpose is to protect the national interest of the United States, and indeed the interests of people throughout the Middle East and around the world.

"Saddam Hussein must not be allowed to threaten his neighbors or the world with nuclear arms, poison gas or biological weapons." Originally Posted by LexusLover

Hey bigtex, do you also see the trend among the posts below? It wasn't just the Republicans making that argument:

MADELEINE ALBRIGHT, SECRETARY OF STATE, CLINTON ADMINISTRATION: "Iraq is a long way from Ohio, but what happens there matters a great deal here. For the risk that the leaders of a rogue state will use nuclear, chemical or biological weapons against us or our allies is the greatest security threat we face. And it is a threat against which we must and will stand firm. In discussing Iraq, we begin by knowing that Saddam Hussein, unlike any other leader, has used weapons of mass destruction even against his own people." (CNN's "Showdown With Iraq: International Town Meeting," 2/18/98)

SANDY BERGER, NATIONAL SECURITY ADVISER, CLINTON ADMINISTRATION: "Some have suggested that we should basically turn away. We should close our eyes to this effort to create a safe haven for weapons of mass destruction. But imagine the consequences if Saddam fails to comply and we fail to act. Saddam will be emboldened believing the international community has lost its will. He will rebuild his arsenal of weapons of mass destruction, and someday, some way, I am certain, he will use that arsenal again as he has 10 times since 1983." (CNN's "Showdown With Iraq: International Town Meeting," 2/18/98)

SEN. JOHN KERRY (D-MA): "Saddam Hussein has already used these weapons and has made it clear that he has the intent to continue to try, by virtue of his duplicity and secrecy, to continue to do so. ... It is a threat with respect to the potential of terrorist activities on a global basis." (Press Conference, 2/23/98)

SEN. JOHN KERRY (D-MA): "If you don't believe ... Saddam Hussein is a threat with nuclear weapons, then you shouldn't vote for me." (Ronald Brownstein, "On Iraq, Kerry Appears Either Torn Or Shrewd," Los Angeles Times, 1/31/03)2

SEN. JAY ROCKEFELLER (D-WV): "I do believe that Iraq poses an imminent threat, but I also believe that after September 11th that question is increasingly outdated." (Congressional Record, 10/10/02)

SEN. JAY ROCKEFELLER (D-WV): "Saddam's existing biological and chemical weapons capabilities pose real threats to America today, tomorrow. ... [He] is working to develop delivery systems like missiles and unmanned aerial vehicles that could bring these deadly weapons against U.S. forces and U.S. facilities in the Middle East. He could make these weapons available to many terrorist groups, third parties, which have contact with his government. Those groups, in turn, could bring those weapons into the United States and unleash a devastating attack against our citizens. I fear that greatly." (Congressional Record, 10/10/02)

SEN. HILLARY CLINTON (D-NY): "In the four years since the inspectors, intelligence reports show that Saddam Hussein has worked to rebuild his chemical and biological weapons stock, his missile delivery capability, and his nuclear program. ... It is clear, however, that if left unchecked, Saddam Hussein will continue to increase his capability to wage biological and chemical warfare and will keep trying to develop nuclear weapons." (Congressional Record, 10/10/02)

Tim Russert: "Do you believe we could have disarmament without regime change?"
SEN. HILLARY CLINTON (D-NY): "I doubt it ... I can support the President. I can support an action against Saddam Hussein because I think it's in the long-term interest of our national security." (NBC, "Meet the Press," 9/15/02)

REP. NANCY PELOSI (D-CA): "Saddam Hussein certainly has chemical and biological weapons. There's no question about that." (NBC, "Meet the Press," 11/17/02)

SEN. CHARLES SCHUMER (D-NY): "[It] is Hussein's vigorous pursuit of biological, chemical and nuclear weapons, and his present and 10 potential future support for terrorist acts and organizations, that make him a terrible danger to the people to the United States." (Congressional Record, 10/10/02)

HOWARD DEAN, CURRENT DNC CHAIR, FORMER GOVERNOR OF VERMONT: "There are such a thing as international outlaws. I'm not sure if China is one, but I'm quite sure Iran and Iraq are." (CBC/PBS, "The Editors," 1/31/98)

SEN. TOM DASCHLE (FORMER D-SD): "Iraq is not the only nation in the world to possess weapons of mass destruction, but it is the only nation with a leader who has used them against his own people. It is essential that a dictator like Saddam not be allowed to evade international strictures and wield frightening weapons of mass destruction." (Congressional Record, 2/12/98)

SEN. HARRY REID (D-NV): "We had to attack. [President Clinton] had to do what his military advisors told him he should do ... Now is not the time for second-guessing or partisan finger-pointing. National security concerns must come first ... [Saddam Hussein] is too dangerous of a man to be given carte blanche with weapons of mass destruction." (From Brendan Riley, "Nevada Leaders React To Iraq Bombing," Associated Press, 12/26/98)

SEN. JOHN EDWARDS (FORMER D-NC): "Serving on the Intelligence Committee and seeing day after day, week after week, briefings on Saddam's weapons of mass destruction and his plans on using those weapons, he cannot be allowed to have nuclear weapons, it's just that simple. The whole world changes if Saddam ever has nuclear weapons." (MSNBC, "Buchanan And Press," 1/7/03)4

SEN. PATRICK LEAHY (D-VT): "I have no doubt Saddam Hussein is lying. He has lied countless times before. He is likely hiding weapons, including chemical and biological weapons. The U.N. Inspectors' Report leaves little doubt of that." (Congressional Record, 1/30/03, p. S1782)

Alarmists fail to realize that areas "conquered" by ISIS are largely Sunni with no motivation/incentive to fight. Not the case with Bagdad Originally Posted by BigLouie

Those who've never combat deployed to that region fail to realize that the Sunnis are human and will try to deal with a problem, even if it means fighting Sunni terrorists. Contrary to your argument, the Sunnis in conquered areas have either fought back, or fled the area.

Remember the unit I was talking about? The one that my unit worked with and trained? That was a unit in the Sunni Triangle. The Muslims in our AO were Sunnis. They hated terrorists, regardless if they were Sunni or not. They had the incentive to fight, and local tribes sided with them... ISIS had no chance; hence they went for easier locations.

No, we weren't in the Baghdad area either.

Good discussion and thanks for serving.

Clinton and the republican congress had more tax revenue coming in. Bush 1 raised the tax rates, the tax rate percentages in all 7 tax brackets were higher. Clinton kept these same rates. For example the rate in the highest bracket was 39%. Clinton did not have any wars to deal with or any major entitlements to implement. This helped lead to a surplus at the end of Clinton's term.

According to charts below, the debt did increase between 2003 and 2007. You have any links to show that the debt went down between 2003 and 2007?

Yes, we pulled out in 2011, but didn't we leave 5,000 boots on the ground? If so, that would make it 11 plus years of having more than a 1,000 soldiers being there. If the Iraq government can protect itself without outside help, why are we sending in a small force of troops, sending the Navy, looking at possible Drone strikes for this new conflict?

True, you did not say Military State, but you did say "stay as long as it takes". Which costs money that has to be accounted for. The republicans want a balanced budget for each fiscal year. When there is no budget agreement we go into the sequester.

<SNIP: STRAWMAN>
Originally Posted by flghtr65

First, WHERE, in the statement that you quoted, do I specifically state that our debt went down from 2003 to 2007?

What I actually said, which could be found in what you quoted:

"Also, the DEFICIT went down from 2003 to 2007, when both the Iraq and Afghanistan Wars were going on. We still had the tax cuts during that time." -- herfacechair

WHERE, in THAT statement, do I argue that the debt went down during that period? Let's simplify this.

I said that something went down. Well? What went down? The answer is highlighted in the above quote.

I tried to find it by reading that quote again, and I tried to let the computer help me via a "control f" search, in both instances. The only mention in my quote was in reference to the debt still being there under Clinton.

This is an example of you advancing a strawman argument:

Let "X" be my argument.
Let "Y" be your assumption of my argument, which is absolutely not close to what I said.
You advance this argument: "Y" is wrong, therefore, "X" is "wrong."

The surplus that we had in the 1990s resulted in the Republicans strong-arming everybody else into agreeing with them in cutting spending, and spending less than what we were taking in. The factors that you mention in your reply would not matter if we would've spent more than what we were taking in. The latter scenario would've given us a deficit.

Also, if you look at two of the graphs that you posted in your post, it shows the debt. It shows both gross debt, and federal debt. In both of those graphs, you noticed that the bars representing the years 2003 two 2007 are small relative to the current debt as well as that of the projected debt.

The Iraq War officially ended at the end of 2011. The funding for operation dropped along with the removal of the US forces. The debt continued to increase despite combat operations being over in Iraq, and despite the fact that we are in a massive drawdown in Afghanistan.

So you can't even use the debt in this argument, because the debt is projected to continue going up even after we close the Afghanistan war.

If you read my statement and the context of the argument that I'm making, "However long it takes," is not the same thing as consistently maxing out what we are spending over there.

Again, more tax revenue alone isn't going to do much for the deficit, or debt, if the government is going to insist on spending more than what they're taking in. Clinton and the Democrats wanted to do that, the Republican majority wanted to spend less than what they were taking in.

Also, you're implying that increases in taxes bring more tax revenue in. The reality is that the government collects more tax revenue after taxes are lowered. This happened after Kennedy lowered taxes, after Reagan lowered taxes, and after Bush II lowered taxes.

When Bush 1 and Clinton inched taxes up, they didn't spike these taxes to the level they were in before Reagan dropped the tax rates. We were pretty much well within the margin of the Reagan tax cuts.

Increases in taxes would bring more revenue in on a temporary basis, but in the long run it brings less revenue in than what it could otherwise bring in.

President Clinton did raise taxes. The idea that this led to the increased revenue that led to an economic boom is just a myth:

http://www.forbes.com/sites/charlesk...-tax-increase/

Second, combat operations ended in Iraq in December of 2011. Any security that we had there, that was military, was there on a non-combat status... as they are elsewhere in the world where they are in a noncombat status. Any substantial training we were giving them during that period stopped when we pulled out.

We were no longer there in a combat, or combat support, capacity after 2011. So no, you can say that we were there for 11+ or 12 years in the sense that you're trying to argue on this thread.

You first argued this:

"We have been in Iraq 12 plus years," - flghtr65

Then you argued that we were there, "11 +" years based on inductive fallacy... itself a contradiction of your original argument.

The math doesn't support either one of your arguments... 2003 to 2011 is 8 years. In fact, we were there for approximately 8 years, 9 months and 12 days. That's the amount of time we had to stand them up and to train them. When we left at the end of 2011, we were no longer giving them substantial training... the kind of training they'd need to repel borders or to contain infighting.

You implied that we were giving them substantial training still, which wasn't the case for well over 2 years now. So yes, in order to make up for the mistake that this administration made, we have to send military back.

Again, our deficit went down from 2003 to 2007, despite the Iraq and Afghanistan Wars. Our debts during that period is small compared to what it is now. We were consistently winning in Iraq, so obviously they were getting enough money to do what it took. My statement, "as much as it takes" was said in that context, and not the out of context strawman that you're making it to be.

This entire post, as with the vast majority of your arguments on this thread, are best described as "ignoratio elenchi." In other words, just as it has been pointed out earlier on this thread, many of you people consistently fail to address the actual argument.

STRAWMAN + Informal Fallacy

This neocon is nothing more than another welfare cry baby wanting a share of the tax receipts for his pet projects...

STRAWMAN
Originally Posted by WTF

if you were capable of understanding writing that even a fifth grader could understand, you would not have came to that conclusion. In fact, if you understood what you were reading, you would've understood that I was pointing out a threat that we were dealing with. You also would've understood that I was addressing the serious misconceptions that your side of the argument was, and still is, advancing on this thread.

One of my arguments is that we are in a Mortal Kombat with an entity that wants to destroy our way of doing things. The current administration has failed to effectively carry out a policy to counter that. Don't mistake my pointing reality out as my arguing for a piece of the budget.

STRAWMAN

which is basically nation building. The problem herface is to ignorant to see that nation building is a liberal notion that never works in the long run.

STRAWMAN Originally Posted by WTF

Where, in any of the posts that I've made here, did I specifically state that we should be out there building every country for the sake of "nation building" itself?

Part of our campaign in Iraq was rebuilding infrastructure to support free economic trade within Iraq and with other countries. You need to facilitate businesses thriving in order to benefit the general population. When businesses thrive, people have a better chance of getting jobs. When people have a better chance of getting jobs, they will have less incentive to fight against the coalition.

Here is an example.

A good number of the people that were planting IED's in Iraq were not terrorists. They were members of the local population who were unemployed. The terrorist were paying these people anywhere from $500-$5000.

That range far exceeds what the average Iraqi earns in a month. In the Arab world, it's a man's duty to work outside the house and to earn money to take care of the family. An unemployed man is generally frowned upon. A man working at home was generally frowned upon to. So, with nowhere else to turn, many accepted the terrorists offer to plant IED's on the side of the roads.

Now, why were the terrorists paying these people large sums of money to do this? The reason is that the vast majority of those that were planting these bombs got killed in their attempt to plant these bombs. You heard about those that successfully went off and killed coalition members. What you didn't hear was that the vast majority of the attempts to do this resulted in the terrorists' deaths.

So, instead engaging in what they knew was a suicide mission, they paid high sums of money to an unemployed person to do the job for them.

The vast majority of the Iraqi people would have rather been working and earning money to take care of their families. As the economic situation improved, thanks to improving business and security conditions, less Iraqis had incentive to take on a suicide mission.

Operation Iraqi freedom, just like the rest of the war on terror, involves more than combat action. It involves a full spectrum of activity to move a population into taking the right course of action.

Because of the resilience of the enemy that were fighting, it also makes sense to send teams overseas to train foreign national militaries. With a drawdown of Afghanistan happening right now, the emphasis has been on deploying Special Forces teams to Africa, South America, and Southeast Asia, to train their militaries to effectively deal with the terrorists that these local national governments have been dealing with.

The fact that you dismiss this as nation building proves that you are clueless about both history and current events. You have very little knowledge of how the world works outside the borders of the United States. Heck, judging by your comments on the other threads, it appears that you don't have that much of an understanding of how things work in United States either.

STRAWMAN

Even Germany and Japan have hurt us because we have to account for the Defense money they do not have to spend because of the US. They are able to spend that savings on their citizens healthcare. So for the longest our corporations and citizens taxes have went to help Japan and Germany and the bunch while they have been able to skate. This liberal policy has benefited a select few in our society. The Oil industry, The Defense Industry....Guess which one herface is defending? [/SIZE]

STRAWMAN Originally Posted by WTF

You see, this is an example of what I am talking about. If you paid attention to current events, you'd know that the Japanese are entertaining changing the part of their Constitution that restricts them from going beyond what's required for their defense. We had a large influence on the part of the Japanese Constitution that restricts the Japanese from expanding their military in a way that they see fit.

If you paid attention to what's going on around world, you'd know that the Southeast Asian countries, as well as Japan and South Korea, are on edge over what the Chinese are doing in the South China Sea. This area has several disputed territories where the Chinese are pushing their strut around.

To counter this, many in Japan want to expand the Japanese military so that it could effectively step in and take the lead with security in that part of the world. This helps us out in the long run.

If you've also paid attention to current events in Europe, you'd notice that the Germans are also pushing to expand their military capability. During the Cold War, our having a large military presence in Western Europe gave us leverage. There were many in Europe wanted to cave in to the Soviets economic pressures.

At the same time, these countries were on edge over what the Soviet Union was doing. We were able to leverage the fact that we had their backs.

The money that they are spending under healthcare far exceeds the savings that there having from not having a larger military. In fact, there were demonstrations in Germany and elsewhere in Europe because the European governments that were paying for people's healthcare were trying to reform that very program.

This involve cuts in this and other social benefits the people were getting from their government. This is happening despite the fact that we had a large military presence there.

If you are able to understand writing that even a fifth grader could understand, you'd notice that I was defending the decision to go into Iraq. You'd also noticed that I was criticizing the decision to make it harder for the Iraqis to agree on an SOFA agreement.

Nowhere in any of my posts do I argue for a specific industry, outside of what was needed to counter assumptions that the money spent on the war of terror did not benefit people in the United States.

STRAWMAN

Lets call a spade a spade...herface is promoting a liberal policy. He is a Liberal wolf dressed in conservative sheep face.

STRAWMAN Originally Posted by WTF

wrong, you're not calling a spade a spade, your advancing a strawman argument. You're more interested in attacking me then you are in defending your argument. Considering that you ran out of argument, and considering that you knew that you've lost his argument, you have resorted to the argument loser's equivalent of guerrilla warfare.

I'm not promoting a liberal policy, I'm promoting a policy that requires taking courses of action that secures our long-term security. This requires people to understand what's going on around the world, to understand asymmetrical warfare, to understand the significance that these two have on us, and other things, instead of people blindly following propaganda as you and others on your side of the argument have been doing.

STRAWMAN

We have bankrolled the rest of the worlds Defense needs for to long....

STRAWMAN Originally Posted by WTF

This statement proves that you are clueless about both history and current events. Every nation on the planet is going to pursue its own interests. These are mainly security, political, and economic interests.

But what the United States is doing on a global level, other countries are doing at a continental, regional, or local level. If the United States were to disappear tomorrow, another country would step in and do exactly what we are doing. Before us, it was Great Britain. Before Great Britain, it was France. The further back in history you look, there was a leading country that had a military presence in large areas of the world.

A nation's security and economy both rely on a strong defense. A healthy economy depends on a healthy international trade. A healthy international trade depends on freedom of movement of goods, as well as freedom of movement of resources from their source to the factory. A strong military depends on a strong economy.

Securing both insures that the military could secure our national interests which includes national security.

If you crack open a world history book and read with the intentions of understanding what you are reading, you'll see precisely what I'm talking about.

Jesus Christ , for someone that points out others not sticking to the subject matter....you sure the fuck change the subject matter quite a bit. Originally Posted by WTF

BWAAAAAAHAAAAAAHAAAAHAAAAA!

Pot, meet Kettle. Kettle, meet Pot.

I'm sorry, but unless you stick to the subject, as in argue against the argument rather than attacking the person making the argument, you don't have a leg to stand on complaining about others doing the same to you.