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

Right now, I'd rather be Bush's "Yell-Leader" than ....

.. your "man's" ...

http://www.politico.com/story/2014/0...sj-107978.html

"A majority of voters — 54 percent — also said that they don’t believe Obama “is able to lead the country and get the job done,” compared with 42 percent who said they think he can."

Foreign policy was at 37%. Enjoy!

And "he" has "two more years, plus"!

Oh, BigTitsLiar, you are still wrong, and still "assuming."

Get over it, and yourself.

I did take note that you are trashing another "battle experienced" servicemember, and taking Obama's opinion over his? So, it's like I said, it has nothing to do with military experience with you, it's all about your agenda. Clinton, Obama, and now another Clinton. Originally Posted by LexusLover

It is really worse than that. If you account for the 40% that in every poll still worship at the feet of Obama no matter what he does by removing them from any thinking person's opinion then it is nearly 90% who don't think Obama can lead, tell the truth, or guide the country. You see some of them on the very site.

It is really worse than that. If you account for the 40% that in every poll still worship at the feet of Obama no matter what he does by removing them from any thinking person's opinion then it is nearly 90% who don't think Obama can lead, tell the truth, or guide the country. You see some of them on the very site. Originally Posted by JD Barleycorn

Somare you saying that if you take away the people who believe differently than you, then 90% of the remaining 100% agree with you?

I don't think it can get any worse than that, professor Idiot!

To prevent exactly what the fuck is happening in Iraq today, you lying, hypocritical, racist, cum-gobbling golem fucktard, HDDB, DEM!





Actually, Ekim the Inbred Chimp, you should *new* better than that. Originally Posted by I B Hankering

You think that would have stopped it?

You think it's our job to rule that country?

You want to post the link to my original DOTY poll?

Notice I didn't punctuate any of these questions with - "you ..."

They must love you in the grocery store or the bank. I'm sure you're they're favorite customer.

Without countering you many small picture points, I will focus on the big picture that you can not seem to grasp. Originally Posted by WTF

this statement proves that your reading comprehension "abilities," quotation marks used strongly, is a colossal failure.

Throughout this thread, I've presented the big picture. This big picture is based on knowledge of 2000+ years of history, my extensive research on this very topic, and as well as on my experiences on four continents outside of North America. Every single point that I provided in my posts here support an even larger argument.

What you dismiss as "small picture points," quotations used strongly, our points that you know for fact you cannot counter with facts.

The remainder of your reply proves that you have absolutely no clue about the big picture. It also proves that you are susceptible to propaganda. The fact that you got destroyed on this thread by multiple posters is a symptom of your knack for consistently spewing propaganda that has been force-fed down your throat.

Inductive Fallacy: SRAWMAN

Yes...and the reason those empires collapsed was because the cost of securing and maintaining resources or trade as you call it outweighed the resources/trade gathered. You are making my point for me herface! Maintaining a large military presence all over the world is exactly why nations fail. I will say that it does benefit the vast industrial military complex that you seem to fall under. Originally Posted by WTF

Here's what I said in entirety:

"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." -herfacechair

Notice how the context of what I was saying all of sudden changes when you add in everything else I said in addition to what you quoted. The answer is no, I didn't make your point. Once again, all you have done is addressed a strawman argument.

As I previously pointed out, there are many reasons to why these empires fell. Here's something else I said that you left out from your quotes:

"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." -herfacechair

Again, notice how the context all of a sudden changes when you include everything else that I said in the post. You'll notice that it has absolutely no resemblance to what you're out of context quote is stating.

No wonder why you decided not to "counter" my "small" points. Leaving the remainder of my quote out gives you the freedom to advance your strawman argument.

If you look at the relationship that I described between a strong military and a strong economy, you'd see why empires eventually fall. In the Roman Empire's case, the government's sacking the economy drained its ability to maintain large militaries. Consequently, they spend less and less on the military resulting in a less quality military. The rest, as most of the people here but you, know his history.

Nowhere did I argue about maintaining a large military presence all over the world simply for the sake of maintaining a large military presence. I argued that is important to preserve the logistics, infrastructure, inner workings, etc, needed to secure a strong and stable economy for the United States.

Nowhere have I argued that the United States bear the sole responsibility for this. Keep in mind however that every country in the world is pursuing is interested different degrees and levels. If the United States were to disappear tomorrow, another country will step in and do exactly what we're doing now.

Inductive Fallacy: SRAWMAN

(REPEAT POINT)

Like I said you're just another welfare junkie making a case of why taxpayers should give you their $$$$...4-6 TRILLION in Iraq so far. 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.

You need glasses for your short sightedness! Originally Posted by WTF

You need to have surgery in order to gain the ability to see before you pull shit out of your ass about other people needing glasses for short sightedness. The first thing that you need to do, before you get this vision gaining surgery, is to have another surgery involving your proctologist pulling your head out of your ass.

You also need to go back and sue the education system that graduated you from high school. They robbed the tax payers blind with their failure to educate you.

I suggest you volunteer to go fight over there against the volunteer rebel fighters and quit asking the American soldiers and taxpayer to fight your cause. Originally Posted by WTF

You've shown disrespect, and contempt, for veterans on this thread. I'm sorry, but your attitude makes you somebody that does not speak for us.

The vast majority of us that have combat deployed to that region understand why we went there. Again, as I have argued earlier in the thread:

People who have absolutely no clue, about the threat that the United States faces, don't see that the enemy that we are facing has visible and invisible parts. This enemy uses traditional and nontraditional means of warfare. Iraq under Saddam, the Taliban, Abu Sayef (sp) in the Philippines, Hamas, the Taliban, and any other terror group that believes in killing the infidel, are part of a single entity.

Our enemy does not recognize the borders separating the Arab countries. In their eyes, every predominantly Muslim country is part of the Islamic nation. Their ultimate goal is to establish a global Islamic caliphate. The first step would be to create several Taliban style governments across the Middle East. Once the Middle East is turned into a revived Moorish caliphate, the next step would be to work on the rest of the world.

This war was never just about 9/11, Al Qaeda, Afghanistan, and the Taliban. These were just symptoms of the real issue. This issue is a radical Islamic war to eradicate the West, and to establish global Islamic caliphate's around the world.

As has been accurately pointed out to you, if we do what you argue, this will become our fight. You need to pay attention to what our enemies are saying. You're insisting in us doing the opposite of what my side of the argument is arguing here makes you a useful idiot for our enemies.

People on both sides of the aisle as well as military leadership predicted the current situation if we continue this nation building crap. Originally Posted by WTF

Wrong, only the people that don't understand the global geostrategic and geopolitical situation argued that the breakdown in Iraq would happen. Many guys made a prediction, you made it on the hope that the mission would fail.

Again, This current crisis is a result of Obama dropping the bubble. His failure to initially take advantage of the initial crisis in Syria allowed this terrorist group to grow stronger. Had he done what a real president would've done, this terrorist group would not have gained prominence or strength. They certainly would not have been able to spill over into Iraq.

This isn't a failure because we refuse to listen to you guys, this is a failure because you guys chose somebody that proved to be as indecisive as we predicted he would be.

Also, you're advancing a strawman argument by insisting that we are arguing for nation building. Our side of the argument is arguing for dealing with the enemy is stabilizing the region. We are arguing for a multidimensional response against a multidimensional type of war. If you are insisting that this is just about nation building, you are a victim of propaganda.

Do you think Israel and the Muslim world will ever get along? If so you are living in a fantasy world. Originally Posted by WTF

Nobody is arguing that Israel and the radical element sin that region are going to get along. That's not part of the argument. The person that you are dressing was not making that assumption, you are simply making a strawman argument.

The only army that you are speaking for at this point is the strawman you've built on this thread and others on this message board.

You, like herface, are making my point....nation building is a losing proposition. Originally Posted by WTF

Wrong, neither of us are making your point. You are seeing in the argument what you want to see. Your colossal failure at reading comprehension is causing you to see in our statement something that we are not saying or arguing.

Nowhere in my posts, or that of the person you are responding to, is there an argument for nation building for the sake amazing nation building. Nobody's arguing that nation building is the primary proposition because the point of the argument is not nation building but a response to a threat.

We bolster South Korea. Let them pay for their own Defense and see how exceptional they are. Originally Posted by WTF

The United States doesn't have enough troops in South Korea to effectively defend that country. We simply have enough troops over there to assist the South Koreans. We are not there to counterbalance the North Koreans. The US military that is over there would be the beginning of an effort to increase the infrastructure for larger US military presence should the Chinese military be behind the North Korean military overrunning South Korea.

Even if we pull all US forces from South Korea, there will not be that much a big difference between what they're spending under budget now and what they would have to spend if they have to bolster their defenses.

You're insinuating that our military presence is relieving those countries of the bulk of the military spending they'd be responsible for. That's not the case. Again, even the Japanese are looking at removing the restrictions on them having a larger, more robust, projecting military.

(Inductive Fallacy: STRAWMAN + RED HERRING)

As to Demming a great innovator....he but instigated a national health care system as they did in Germany. So you have two countries with built in savings..1) We pay for their security 2) Their health care costs are much lower. Now those countries are competing with us and you are bragging about what a success that is. What happened to long term thinking? Long term is not 50 years....nation building does not work. Period. It is a liberal fantasy. Originally Posted by WTF

You're deliberately missing the point about him bringing up Demming. You keep insisting on zeroing in on this argument on nation building. When Japan's reconstruction and changeover generations were brought up, the point about W Edwards Deming was used to destroy your assumption. W Edwards Deming played a role in Japan's economic rise. There are others as well, but not only did they help Japan recover, they help Japan develop to a point of competing economically.

This forced the United States into a position where a new way of doing business kicked in. Germany, South Korea, and Japan, proves your argument wrong.

We're not paying for their security. We do not have enough military in each of those countries to 100% protect them. Those countries on the other hand allow us to base our military on their soil to facilitate our need for forward projection.

Without those countries allowing us to base our service members under soil, our national defense needs would be more expensive. Whether were allowed basing there are not will not change the security, political, and economic need for us to be forward deployed in that region and other parts of the world.

We're not paying for those country securities. The programs that you are saying are being paid for by these "savings" cost a lot more than what those "savings" would be able to cover.

As was already mentioned, competition is good. Competition exists within a single country's economy, it is exists among countries on the continent, and it exists throughout the world. Competition forces corporations and companies to be efficient.

A good example of this is Japan in the 80s. There was talk about Japan's economy displacing ours. There was talk about Japan overtaking United States in almost all economic sectors. The United States prevented that in many areas by changing the way it did business. We, the consumers, are benefiting from this change of way of doing business. We benefit in the form of better products, better customer service than what we normally would've gotten, and other things that you're probably enjoying.

The end result is a "carrot" the gives countries more incentive to settle things diplomatically than to start World War III.

The time from the end of World War II and now, inclusive, isn't what's being argued. What's being argued is that we need to have as much or more patience than those we're fighting.

LMAO you will have to find something to back that up. . Originally Posted by i'va biggen

That's as idiotic as telling me the backup my all of my first-hand experiences with videos and photos. I've followed your posts since the summer of 2011. I know for fact that you did precisely what I observed you doing. I'm not going to go digging among the posts you've made in an effort that you're going to disregard anyway.

Until your side of the argument answers my questions, you don't have a leg to stand on demanding that I find anything for you, or that I answer any questions.

Both you and JD are both right wingers is why you are on the same side of the discussion. . Originally Posted by i'va biggen

WTF, bigtext, you, and the others that I am debating with on this message board are left-wingers. That's why you guys are on the same side of the argument on this thread. This is not a discussion, because a discussion has plenty of agreement between both sides. A debate involves opposition between the two groups. I'm seeing a lot of opposition here, so this is not a discussion but a debate.

I take every opportunity to call bullshit when ir appears. . Originally Posted by i'va biggen

Yeah, you call "bullshit" in the exact same sense that a "know it all" teenager, that doesn't realize that he or she is wrong, tries to call "bullshit" on a parent who's actually right.

You've yet to prove any of our arguments wrong. Until you've actually argue against the argument, instead of throwing rhetoric at us, you don't have a leg to stand on calling bullshit where none exists.

The cold hard reality, based on what I'm looking at, shows that you take every opportunity to argue against the facts that destroy your misguided notions of what is actually the case. You have a knack for showing us how smart you aren't.

REPEAT POINT
Your taking my comments regardless of the topic or to whom addressed, and start your anti democratic rants are typical right wing tactics. REPEAT POINT . 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

If I prove them wrong the wingers just keep on with their same BS as nothing happened. Originally Posted by i'va biggen

Baghdad Bob? Is that you?

Don't mistake the facts as BS. Don't mistake your rhetoric as the "facts." I have yet to see you advance any relevant facts on this thread. If our side of the argument is continuing on the argument that we are arguing, it has been because your side of the argument, which includes you, has FAILED to prove us wrong.

Facts will change our minds, the drivel that you and the rest of the people on your side of the argument spew will not change our minds.

It's like what I've indicated on this thread, the assessment that I have before a debate is the same assessment that I end up having after that argument. This has been the case throughout the 10 years I've been debating with people like you online.

Not a single one of you has advanced a fact-based argument to justify my changing from my fact-based argument. When you argue based on rhetoric and propaganda, and not on facts, you bet you we'll continue to advance the arguments that we've been advancing. The facts are simply on our side of the argument.

Your ego is telling you that you have proven our side of the argument "wrong." In reality, you are slinging bullshit at our side of the argument the way a monkey would sling feces.

I have always thought the original excuses for the war was BS, and I still feel the same way. . Originally Posted by i'va biggen

I know for a fact that the reasons for entering Iraq were legitimate. I knew that before the war, and I know that now.

I also know for a fact that people like you, and those on your side of the argument with regards to the justifications for Iraq or Afghanistan, don't know crap about what you're talking about. You guys are full of shit and are easily proven wrong.

When I was in Iraq, my first-hand experience showed me that you guys were flat out wrong.

I take pleasure in taking your arguments apart perpetually.

My responses were addressed to the anti liberal BS that always arises on this board if anything happens anywhere. REPEAT POINT . Originally Posted by i'va biggen

Actually, our side of the argument are accurately pinning the blame where it belongs... partly to compensate the media's refusing to do the same. Also, my responses addressed the anti-conservative/anti-Republican propaganda that your side of the argument consistently advances.

Your side has failed to prove my argument was wrong. . Originally Posted by i'va biggen

Baghdad Bob? Is that you again?

That's your ego and your stress shields speaking. The cold hard reality is that we've thoroughly proven your arguments wrong. You've advanced the same argument here that I've repeatedly proven wrong in the past 10 years.

We have thoroughly proven your argument, as well is that of your side of the argument, wrong. Your side the argument, including you, have resorted to inductive fallacies and personal attacks as a sole, or main drive, of your arguments.

This is equivalent to the losing side resorting to guerrilla warfare. You, and those on your side of the argument on this thread, are engaging in tactics that the losing side engages in these debates.

You can attack me and it is ok ? . Originally Posted by i'va biggen

If I've attacked you, it's because you have attacked me. If I've simply disagreed with your argument, regardless of who you were addressing, that doesn't constitute me attacking you.

I thought someone who claims to have a MS would be smarter, however nothing surprises me here anymore. Originally Posted by i'va biggen

My rightfully disagreeing with the inaccuracies in your arguments... and your arguments are full of inaccuracies... Doesn't call my MBA into question. In fact, the analytical thoughts that I'm using to process the research that I've done to generate the argument that I'm using against you speaks positively for the fact that I have my MBA.

Both my academic and military experiences required extensive use of research, the facts, analytical thoughts... and coming up with the conclusion based on these facts. I'm using that experience in destroying your argument as well as that of those on your side of the argument.

(Inductive Fallacy: STRAWMAN + RED HERRING)

I see by your responses that you would not care if the Iraq.s brought you up on charges of killing a civilian in a fire fight. So I guess with your expert testimony that Obama was wrong not to have agreed to the SOFA agreement. I did not think it was right for Him to agree to it without legal immunity for our troops. I was wrong . Hell Who knew it. Originally Posted by i'va biggen

The question that you asked the previous post, and the comment that you're making here, doesn't accurately capture the realities on the ground there. My responses accurately addressed the reality that is on the ground. Nowhere in that post that I argue what you are claiming that I am arguing.

Your argument is both a strawman and a red herring, it's a strawman because it deliberately distorts reality and assumes that we are arguing that alternative distorted reality. You're not addressing the actual reality on the ground there. It's a red herring, because it's designed to draw away from the actual argument.

Again:

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.

Yes I did slutchimp how about you? Originally Posted by i'va biggen

What branch of the military did you serve in, what component did you serve in, from when to when did you serve, what was your MOS, and what major operation did you become a part of?

(Inductive Fallacy: STRAWMAN)

I think from an accounting perspective we are talking apples and oranges. How do you define deficit? The reason I ask is that after 2003 the "rolling debt" increases slightly. This says to me that at end of the current fiscal accounting year the government spent more money than it took in. Let's get on the same page with the accounting terms and then continue. Originally Posted by flghtr65

I'm sorry, I don't accommodate the people that I argue with. This isn't an argument about accounting.

You tried to throw debt into the picture. You showed graphs showing those debts. Both those graphs show that the debts from 2003 to 2007 are small compared to the debts that came after them.

Again:

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.

You tried to call my argument about, "however long it takes," is something that would max out our debt. When your own graph showed that this wasn't the case, and when, "however long it takes," didn't involve maxing out our debt, you tried to switch this into something about accounting.

The fact of the matter is that our debt is still getting bigger, and we are drawing down in Afghanistan. Neither the debt nor the deficit support your argument. What you were implying was proven wrong.

You being naive enough to believe that you got through my skin gave me a good laugh.

Fat chance that will ever happen! Originally Posted by bigtex

I've been debating with people like you over the past decade. I have you guys categorized into different categories. You're not the first person to behave the way your behaving on this thread. I could tell, by the tone of your "voice" on this thread, that people have gotten under your skin.

In fact, the new portion of your reply shows that you're making an effort to not do what you normally do. But your frustration, and your stress shields actions, still shows through.

As for the rest of your Breitbart and FAUX News WMD infested "talking points," try 'em in some other venue. They have already been tested here and failed to pass the reality test. The fact is that WMD's were the reason used by the the Shrub Administration to invade Iraq during the Spring of 2003. And despite your futile attempts to convince us otherwise, none were found. Originally Posted by bigtex

Again, I've argued against people like you over the past decade. You guys play by the same playbook, and argue the same talking points. These talking points that you guys argued, and have been arguing over the past decade, are very similar to the talking points of major left wing talking heads.

Again, prior to my going on R & R leave from Iraq, a couple of Iraqi security forces got attacked by a sarin laced IED. Sarin is a chemical agent, it's a weapon of the mass destruction. Since you don't like Fox News, perhaps you would read CNN on another incident:

"PHILLIPS: Two soldiers were treated for what Kimmitt calls "minor traces of exposure," but has since been cleared for duty. We also learned today that a shell containing mustard gas turned up a week or so ago. Both are being studied by the survey group, not to mention CNN's national security correspondent, David Ensor." -- CNN article

Mustard agent is a chemical agent. It's a chemical agent that falls under one of the three main categories of weapons of mass destruction.

Whether you like it or not, WMDs were found in Iraq post invasion.

The only arguments that are failing to pass the reality test are the arguments that you guys are advancing. I have proved your side of the argument wrong consistently with regards to the issue of weapons of mass destruction in Iraq... as well as to the issues surrounding Iraq. I've proved you guys wrong on this thread, and I've proved your side of the argument wrong over the past decade.

Until you advance a reasoned, logical argument, you don't have a leg to stand on claiming that our argument "failed" the reality test.

What you think of as "reality" is no different from some thinking that unicorns exist.

The cold hard reality is that your argument, as well as that of those in your side of the argument, doesn't pass reality check.

WMD were one of the reasons for going into Iraq. They weren't the only reason for going into Iraq.

In case you missed it, consider the following:

REPEAT POINT

"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!

In simpler terms! You can put lipstick on a pig and dress it up in the finest New York City fashions.

But at the end of the day, it's still swine!

REPEAT POINT Originally Posted by bigtex

In case you missed it, here's the reply I gave you the last time you said that:

"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. The tone of your reply indicates that. Your using large letters is just a cover for your emotional reaction. Your username is a compensation for your serious failings as in these debates.

LexusLover: That lame-ass "ploy" might deter some from the conversation or discussion,

I've been arguing with people like these over the past decade. Every time they lose, they resort to a whole bunch of different kinds of ploys to try to wear down the winning side. A lot of these tactics involve the use of inductive fallacies like red herrings, strawmen, attacking the person and not the argument, moving the goalposts, changing the topics, and many other antics.

They don't realize that the more they to continue doing this, the more credibility they lose.

The more that they reply, the more insight that they provide into their psychological makeup.

Those ploys never worked with me. The sooner they realize that my reply to them is almost as guaranteed as death or taxes, the better for their credibility.

Also, those on the opposite side of the argument are of great service to my "breaking in" my new speech-to-text software. This is fun.

That's as idiotic as telling me the backup my all of my first-hand experiences with videos and photos. I've followed your posts since the summer of 2011. I know for fact that you did precisely what I observed you doing. I'm not going to go digging among the posts you've made in an effort that you're going to disregard anyway.
Wow, damn I got a stalker .Who knew it, creepy.

Until your side of the argument answers my questions, you don't have a leg to stand on demanding that I find anything for you, or that I answer any questions.
Typical you answer my questions or else you lose..LOL typical right wing talking point.


WTF, bigtext, you, and the others that I am debating with on this message board are left-wingers. That's why you guys are on the same side of the argument on this thread. This is not a discussion, because a discussion has plenty of agreement between both sides. A debate involves opposition between the two groups. I'm seeing a lot of opposition here, so this is not a discussion but a debate.

Typical right wing BS if anyone disagrees with your radical BS they are automatically a liberal. If you have been following me for so long then you would know I am a independent.

Yeah, you call "bullshit" in the exact same sense that a "know it all" teenager, that doesn't realize that he or she is wrong, tries to call "bullshit" on a parent who's actually right.
One know it all to another???
You've yet to prove any of our arguments wrong. Until you've actually argue against the argument, instead of throwing rhetoric at us, you don't have a leg to stand on calling bullshit where none exists.
Which one do you want me to?/
The cold hard reality, based on what I'm looking at, shows that you take every opportunity to argue against the facts that destroy your misguided notions of what is actually the case. You have a knack for showing us how smart you aren't.

Ditto cabbage head.

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.
Every time you rehash your talking points, and this is about the third time you have posted the same long rant I can see your stress points rising.
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.
That is twice, which one do you want me too? Will you repeat this again?
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.
Yah I know I saw the mission accomplished sign.
Bottom line, my responses addressed the anti-conservative/anti-Republican propaganda that your side of the argument was advancing.
As the anti democratic anti liberal that you side advanses. There are no differences between the two parties they both suck.
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.
You have failed to answer or prove my point was 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.
think you have won is misleading, you are delusional.
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:
LOL if you think so, dream on.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=zKhEw7nD9C4



Baghdad Bob? Is that you?
[
Don't mistake the facts as BS. Don't mistake your rhetoric as the "facts." I have yet to see you advance any relevant facts on this thread. If our side of the argument is continuing on the argument that we are arguing, it has been because your side of the argument, which includes you, has FAILED to prove us wrong.
then you think the fact of no legal immunity for the troops is not valid?
Facts will change our minds, the drivel that you and the rest of the people on your side of the argument spew will not change our minds.
Your side is famous for drivel.
It's like what I've indicated on this thread, the assessment that I have before a debate is the same assessment that I end up having after that argument. This has been the case throughout the 10 years I've been debating with people like you online.
Well we all have our crosses to bear. I have been calling people like you out on their BS for a while, but I will not invest ten years on it. got better things to do.
Not a single one of you has advanced a fact-based argument to justify my changing from my fact-based argument. When you argue based on rhetoric and propaganda, and not on facts, you bet you we'll continue to advance the arguments that we've been advancing. The facts are simply on our side of the argument.
I am not responsible for anyone but myself.
Your ego is telling you that you have proven our side of the argument "wrong." In reality, you are slinging bullshit at our side of the argument the way a monkey would sling feces.
Ego is not involved This is not a contest, and I don't think I'm wrong. Do you have a ego problem too?


I know for a fact that the reasons for entering Iraq were legitimate. I knew that before the war, and I know that now.
Opinions vary.
I also know for a fact that people like you, and those on your side of the argument with regards to the justifications for Iraq or Afghanistan, don't know crap about what you're talking about. You guys are full of shit and are easily proven wrong.
LOL OK I'm ready, however it is just your opinion, and for your opinion there are many many more opinions that think you are full of shit, and there was ni justification for them.
When I was in Iraq, my first-hand experience showed me that you guys were flat out wrong.

I take pleasure in taking your arguments apart perpetually.

Really? interesting.

Actually, our side of the argument are accurately pinning the blame where it belongs... partly to compensate the media's refusing to do the same. Also, my responses addressed the anti-conservative/anti-Republican propaganda that your side of the argument consistently advances.

AKA: republican talking points, or drinking the kool aid.

Baghdad Bob? Is that you again?

That's your ego and your stress shields speaking. The cold hard reality is that we've thoroughly proven your arguments wrong. You've advanced the same argument here that I've repeatedly proven wrong in the past 10 years.
Other than repeating is there any new ground, or do you forget what was written?
We have thoroughly proven your argument, as well is that of your side of the argument, wrong. Your side the argument, including you, have resorted to inductive fallacies and personal attacks as a sole, or main drive, of your arguments.
Same shit different paragraph.
This is equivalent to the losing side resorting to guerrilla warfare. You, and those on your side of the argument on this thread, are engaging in tactics that the losing side engages in these debates.

Yada Yada Yada.

If I've attacked you, it's because you have attacked me. If I've simply disagreed with your argument, regardless of who you were addressing, that doesn't constitute me attacking you.

Works both ways, if you remember it was you who started .

My rightfully disagreeing with the inaccuracies in your arguments... and your arguments are full of inaccuracies... Doesn't call my MBA into question. In fact, the analytical thoughts that I'm using to process the research that I've done to generate the argument that I'm using against you speaks positively for the fact that I have my MBA.
I only had one point that I presented about the OP.
Both my academic and military experiences required extensive use of research, the facts, analytical thoughts... and coming up with the conclusion based on these facts. I'm using that experience in destroying your argument as well as that of those on your side of the argument.
Stunning, and when did you destroy my point? There were others ?


The question that you asked the previous post, and the comment that you're making here, doesn't accurately capture the realities on the ground there. My responses accurately addressed the reality that is on the ground. Nowhere in that post that I argue what you are claiming that I am arguing.

Your argument is both a strawman and a red herring, it's a strawman because it deliberately distorts reality and assumes that we are arguing that alternative distorted reality. You're not addressing the actual reality on the ground there. It's a red herring, because it's designed to draw away from the actual argument.

Again:

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.
As I said before and still feel that way. Without legal immunity for our troops was a sticking point that Obama would not sign without. It was a point the Iraq's used to insure the pullout of the Americans. They were in the position they wanted .they had excluded the Sunni, and Kurd's from the government, and had it their way till IsIs showed up.


What branch of the military did you serve in, what component did you serve in, from when to when did you serve, what was your MOS, and what major operation did you become a part of? Originally Posted by herfacechair

that is none of your fucking business , and anyone bragging about it on a hooker board...Well I will keep that to myself.

Again:

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.
Originally Posted by herfacechair

Yesterday General Petraeus called for a more inclusive Iraq government, not air strikes. General Petraeus has backed up what H. Clinton said about Malicki not including the other sects in the government.


http://www.nbcnews.com/storyline/ira...litias-n135311

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.

. Originally Posted by herfacechair

I hate to tell you but the debt slowed in 2003-2007 due to a phony housing boom....one we are still paying for...thus the bigger deficits now.


herface evidently wants us to cut taxes , get involved in more wars in the middle east and loosen credit standards to the point where even his poor Muslim war buddies can buy a house over here on credit.

t
You're insinuating that our military presence is relieving those countries of the bulk of the military spending they'd be responsible for. That's not the case. Again, even the Japanese are looking at removing the restrictions on them having a larger, more robust, projecting military.
. Originally Posted by herfacechair

We spend 3.4% of our GDP on Military spending and that does not include VA spending and research.

Germany spends 1.4 % of their GDP on Defense, Japan 1%, South Korea 2.8%.

You're either a liar , idiot or both if you think those countries are not piggybacking off our Defense spending to get ahead economically.

Like I said policing the world and nation building are losing long term proposition...you are to blind to see that because your life has been spent begging for tax payers money. You cloak that in the form of security for a nation full of chicken shits to scared to challenge your premises.

Gen. David Petraeus, who served as the top commander in Iraq, issued a blunt warning against U.S. military intervention to support of Baghdad's government.
The Shiite-led government of Iraqi Prime Minister Nouri al-Maliki has requested U.S. airstrikes to “break the morale” of Sunni fighters currently running amok who have seized several cities.

Petraeus accused Maliki’s government of “undermining” sectarian reconciliation efforts introduced following the U.S.-led invasion of Iraq, saying that what the country needs isn’t American airstirkes but a more inclusive government.

Maliki’s government has been roundly criticized for implementing policies that alienate and disenfranchise Iraq’s Sunni population.
"You cannot have 18 to 20 percent of the population feeling disenfranchised, feeling that it has no stake in the success of the country," Petraeus told the audience at the Margaret Thatcher Conference on Liberty. "There has to be a government that is trusted by all elements of the society.

What part of your OWN argument do you NOT understand? Originally Posted by herfacechair

The more appropriate question would be, what part of your OWN argument do you NOT understand?

Apparently FAUX News very own Megyn Kelly disagrees with yours, along with The Shrub's, Dick Cheney's and Rummy's distorted, inaccurate, and highly partisan version of the facts leading up to the ill fated and ill advised, spring of 2003 invasion of Iraq. The fact is, it should have never happened and without the WMD issue being front and center, there would have been no reason to invade.

As Trendy would say:

FACT JACK!

I must admit that you (herfacechair) talk a good game but at the end of the day, you're full of as much shit as the Eccie Political Forum's Notorious Idiot Family, led by the Patriarch, Lexi Liar himself.

Megyn Kelly to Dick Cheney: Wrong, sir

By KENDALL BREITMAN | 6/19/14 6:35 AM EDT
FOX News’ Megyn Kelly had some tough questions for former Vice President Dick Cheney on Wednesday night, after he and his daughter, Liz, offered a scathing review of the Obama administration’s foreign policy.

“In your op-ed [in the Wall Street Journal], you write as follows: ‘Rarely has a U.S. president been so wrong about so much at the expense of so many,” Kelly said on her show “The Kelly File.” “But time and time again, history has proven that you got it wrong as well sir.”

Kelly then began listing shortcomings of the Bush administration, pointing out Cheney’s statements that Saddam Hussein had weapons of mass destruction, that the U.S. forces would be considered liberators and that Iraqi insurgency was “in the throes” in 2005.

Cheney responded that invading Iraq was “the right thing” and that it would have been “irresponsible for us not to act.”

“You’ve got to go back and look at the track record,” Cheney said. “We inherited a situation where there was no doubt in anybody’s mind about the extent of Saddam’s involvement in weapons of mass destruction. … Saddam Hussein had a track record that nearly everybody agreed to.”

In the op-ed published Tuesday, the Cheneys wrote that President Barack Obama “seems determined to leave office ensuring he has taken America down a notch” with his foreign policy. The article has drawn scathing criticism, as people have labeled Cheney, which Kelly referred to, as “the man who helped lead us into Iraq in the first place.”

Referencing one of these harsh responses, Kelly quoted The Washington Post, which wrote “There is not a single person in America … who has been more wrong and shamelessly dishonest on the topic of Iraq than Dick Cheney.”

“The suggestion is that you caused this mess,” Kelly said. “What say you?”

“There’s no surprise, frankly, that there are a lot of people now that want to blame the Bush/Cheney administration for what happened, that’s a pretty routine thing we hear from this administration,” Liz Cheney said.

Read more: http://www.politico.com/story/2014/0...#ixzz356yQnpId

Apparently, BigTitsLiar failed to actually watch the interview, but typically has elected to rely on a "description" of the interview with cherry-picked excerpts.

She actually agreed with Cheney's assessment and provided him an opportunity to answer his critics after repeating what the critics had said .... those weren't her thoughts ... she was merely reciting what his critics had said.

Grasping at straws, again, and looking back .. instead of forward.

But what else do you have? Your man is in deep trouble at home and abroad.