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

How many times are you going to "repeat" what he said? And why? Originally Posted by LexusLover

ATTN : lexie lacking I did not repeat it.

Look! Up in the sky!


Originally Posted by lustylad

I didn't know your code name at the gay bar was Dorothy. Lusty Lass.

Yes in Houston....where there wasn't a huge bubble. Originally Posted by WTF

Oh! I "see" .... what you meant to say was ...

Quote:
Originally Posted by WTF View Post
I hate to tell you but the debt slowed in 2003-2007 due to a phony housing boom (EXCEPT IN HOUSTON WHERE THERE WAS NO BUBBLE, BECAUSE THAT'S WHERE I WAS BUILDING AND I AM NO HYPOCRIT)....one we are still paying for(WHICH I DIDN'T CAUSE BECAUSE I WAS BUILDING IN HOUSTON WHERE THERE WAS NO BUBBLE)...thus the bigger deficits now. [/QUOTE]

Does a "phony housing boom" = a "bubble"? IJA.

(And I recall you don't contribute from the illegal aliens working on this country, you just profit from the low wages they get paid. Another "fade" of yours.)

Carry on.

We have a new "ally" in Iraq ... Syria is reportedly bombing the terrorists there .. shortly after the Israelis bombed Syria today. So now the "coalition forces" ...

Syria, Iran, and the U.S.

.. are attacking the terrorists in Iraq. I think Iran is in the lead.

"Pincer" attack!

Wait a minute! STOP! ........didn't Obama say that Assad was the scum of the earth? Didn't Hillary say so as well? So now we are getting allied with the scum of the earth?


For some of you who can't comprehend how the situation in Iraq happened, let me lay it out for you.

When the war was over and the US had won under the Bush doctrine, Obama was supposed to negoiate a Status of Forces Agreement. Namely how many troops would stay behind to safeguard the hard won gains in Iraq. The military commanders (the good guys) wanted to leave 35,000 allied troops behind but Obama said NO. The military commanders came back with a new plan and requirement for 10,000 troops with a lot of neat equipment to support them. Obama said NO (and he hadn't even started to "negoiate" with Maliki yet). The commanders finally asked Obama what he wanted. Obama said 3,500 troops....the military commanders said it couldn't be done with so few. The option was presented to Maliki who said that 3500 would only piss off Iraqis but be unable to do anything. Thanks but no thanks. Obama hung his failure (and Hillary's) on the legal exception for the troops. He didn't even try to negoiate that. This is all Obama.

This is all Obama. Originally Posted by JD Barleycorn

The "community organizer" is a failure.

And now they want a "village idiot,"...

.... who thinks being worth $100+ million is being broke.

Wait a minute! STOP! ........didn't Obama say that Assad was the scum of the earth? Didn't Hillary say so as well? So now we are getting allied with the scum of the earth?


For some of you who can't comprehend how the situation in Iraq happened, let me lay it out for you.

When the war was over and the US had won under the Bush doctrine, Obama was supposed to negoiate a Status of Forces Agreement. Namely how many troops would stay behind to safeguard the hard won gains in Iraq. The military commanders (the good guys) wanted to leave 35,000 allied troops behind but Obama said NO. The military commanders came back with a new plan and requirement for 10,000 troops with a lot of neat equipment to support them. Obama said NO (and he hadn't even started to "negoiate" with Maliki yet). The commanders finally asked Obama what he wanted. Obama said 3,500 troops....the military commanders said it couldn't be done with so few. The option was presented to Maliki who said that 3500 would only piss off Iraqis but be unable to do anything. Thanks but no thanks. Obama hung his failure (and Hillary's) on the legal exception for the troops. He didn't even try to negoiate that. This is all Obama. Originally Posted by JD Barleycorn

The "community organizer" is a failure.

And now they want a "village idiot,"...

.... who thinks being worth $100+ million is being broke. Originally Posted by LexusLover

I will add you to the growing list of members who are stating you do not care if our military can be prosecuted in Iraq courts. That legal immunity means nothing to you. Thanks for dismissing our military.

I will add you to the growing list of members who are stating you do not care if our military can be prosecuted in Iraq courts. That legal immunity means nothing to you. Thanks for dismissing our military. Originally Posted by i'va biggen

LexiLiar is pro military as long as the Commander in Chief and/or the military personnel share his Tea Party allegiance.

If they don't share his distorted political ideology, LLIdiot quickly becomes their biggest critics.

LexiLiar is pro military as long as the Commander in Chief and/or the military personnel share his Tea Party allegiance. If they don't share his distorted political ideology, LLIdiot quickly becomes their biggest critics. Originally Posted by bigtex

BigTtisLiar is at it again. Spewing fabrications to appear relevant.

So you want two more years of this shit, plus eight more afterwards?

Can't wait to see your comments when the first "advisor" gets his/her head sawed off on international TV ..... while your man is playing golf or shooting baskets with "the boys"! Go ahead. Make some more ignorant remarks.

Your "Dream Team" will look something like this at the 19th hole:

Minus one or two lucky faces, of course.

(REPEAT POINT)

How many times are you going to repeat over and over the same thing? This is at least 3-4 I am not going back to count. Seeing you cannot move on after each point has been addressed and bring anything new to the discussion I'm not going through all this again. So now you can claim victory, and your mother will put a gold star next to your name on the fridge.

(REPEAT POINT) Originally Posted by i'va biggen

Do you not see a pattern here? Again:

If you feel like I'm "repeating the same thing over and over again," it's because you're repeating your talking points over and over again. So, if you're seeing a response for a third or fourth time, it's because you said the same thing three or four times. If you don't want to see me repeat a point, quit repeating a point that I've already rebutted.

Here's how to works:

Let "X" be your statement.

Let "Y" be my statement.

If "X," then "Y."

If "X" is the same thing, then "Y" will be the same response. If you want to see a different point addressed, then make a different point. What you really complaining about is my refusal to let your BS stand unchallenged.

Based on that simple relationship that I just expressed here, the only person between the two of us that's having a hard time moving on after a point has been addressed is you. I'm going to do precisely what I said I'll do, I will rebut your points. If you make the same point that you made the last time, I'm going to give you the same response I gave you last time.

If you can't convince me the first time you said it, don't expect to convince me to second time you say it. Your repeat points are going to get repeat rebuttals.

Since you've thoroughly been defeated in this argument, the only person that should be moving on from a point, after it has been addressed, is you. In the meantime, I'll continue to provide counter rebuttals to you.

Simply put, if you don't want me to say the same thing to you, quit repeating the same point that I had just addressed. You've lost the debate, and you have no legs to stand on trying to dictate how people on this thread should debate.

Since my side of the argument has won the argument on this thread with a straight cut victory, only our side of the argument can dictate for your side of the argument. I'm going to tell you the same thing I told other people that I've debated against in the past. I don't accommodate people that argue with me.

Other than my giving you the same counter rebuttal to your rebuttals, I made numerous new rebuttals to you in my previous posts.

I didn't know your code name at the gay bar was Dorothy. Lusty Lass. Originally Posted by i'va biggen

That's your ego speaking. What the other poster was really saying, with that picture, was that you got bitch smacked. You got destroyed so bad that the only honorable course of action for you, and those on your side of the argument, is to cede the argument. By staying in this argument, the only thing you accomplish is further loss of credibility.

Wait a minute! STOP! ........didn't Obama say that Assad was the scum of the earth? Didn't Hillary say so as well? So now we are getting allied with the scum of the earth?


For some of you who can't comprehend how the situation in Iraq happened, let me lay it out for you.

When the war was over and the US had won under the Bush doctrine, Obama was supposed to negoiate a Status of Forces Agreement. Namely how many troops would stay behind to safeguard the hard won gains in Iraq. The military commanders (the good guys) wanted to leave 35,000 allied troops behind but Obama said NO. The military commanders came back with a new plan and requirement for 10,000 troops with a lot of neat equipment to support them. Obama said NO (and he hadn't even started to "negoiate" with Maliki yet). The commanders finally asked Obama what he wanted. Obama said 3,500 troops....the military commanders said it couldn't be done with so few. The option was presented to Maliki who said that 3500 would only piss off Iraqis but be unable to do anything. Thanks but no thanks. Obama hung his failure (and Hillary's) on the legal exception for the troops. He didn't even try to negoiate that. This is all Obama. Originally Posted by JD Barleycorn

I will add you to the growing list of members who are stating you do not care if our military can be prosecuted in Iraq courts. That legal immunity means nothing to you. Thanks for dismissing our military.(REPEAT POINT) Originally Posted by i'va biggen

Didn't you read what he posted? The Status of Forces Agreement would've protected our troops from being held accountable in Iraqi courts for issues committed while carrying out US combat or other missions.

As has been repeatedly argued on this thread, the Obama administration failed to get a Status of Forces Agreement. He more than just failed to get it. He didn't show any real effort to get that Status of Forces Agreement with the Iraqis.

Your argument assumes that the Obama administration tried to get that agreement. However; there was no will on the Obama administration's part to get that agreement. That's the crux of this specific argument.

Your repeat point is nothing but a strawman and a red herring statement. It makes an assumption on someone that isn't based on what they're actually arguing. You're making an assumption that's based on an argument that's not being made.

If you read JD barleycorn's statement, you'd see that he's holding President Obama accountable for his failure to get a Status of Forces Agreement, something that the Iraqis would've been more than happy to agree with.

AAAAARRRRHK! POLLY WANNA CRACKER! AAAAAAAAARRRRRHHHK!

Your entire quote is a repeat of something that you argued earlier in this thread. It's a good thing that you're on i'va biggen's side of the argument. You're an actual case of somebody that can't move on beyond the point that has already been rebutted, just like him. Also, just like I'va biggen, you're prone to repeating yourself like a parrot or a broken record.

.(REPEAT POINT)

herface is a Defense Department welfare queen. Nothing he nor Dick Cheney have said will ever change the fact that nation building if a long term losing proposition for the building country as a whole. 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.

The people that you dismiss as being too "chicken shit" to challenge the facts that I'm presenting are people who are actually smarter than you are. These people know that you don't simply challenge the facts. You're supposed to challenge BS, which is precisely what I'm doing to you and others that I've proven wrong on this thread.

When you consistently argue against the facts, mistaking them as "BS," you're contributing to the erosion of what's left of your credibility. You're like a person that breathes his own exhaust in.

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 "didn't" benefit people in the United States.

.(REPEAT POINT)

It does redistribute wealth from many to a few. herface is part of that few wanting the charity and taxes of others to pay for people like you chickenshitness. 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.

[color=blue]Do you not see a pattern here? Again:

] Originally Posted by herfacechair

Congratulations you have just been awarded parrot of the year award..Wear it proudly.

Only a total idiot declares a victory for themselves.

You have just been bitch slapped by i'va biggen

LexiLiar is pro military as long as the Commander in Chief and/or the military personnel share his Tea Party allegiance.

If they don't share his distorted political ideology, LLIdiot quickly becomes their biggest critics. Originally Posted by bigtex

LL is showing he has no comprehension of the Middle East geo politics and all the acumen of a Tea Bagger. Parroting their ignorant talking points. They were for the war before they were against it! He is the John Kerry in 2014

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. Originally Posted by herfacechair

Are you Dick Cheney's bastard child? Mortal Kombat my ass. If we invaded Mexico and tried to control their oil by installing a pro American government we would be in Mortal Kombat with Mexico. Why? Because Nation building is no longer possible what with social media and asymmetrical warfare. You can not win the hearts and minds of people unless their is a bigger threat they fear. Once that threat is dispersed they will turn on you....just as happened in Iraq. You are stuck in a 1950's mindset.


With the oil we have in this country there is no reason to be over in that part of the world except for a small minority of Americans' that are redistributing the wealth on many in this country to them.

am I the only one who finds the repeated use of the title of the video game Mortal Kombat somewhat juvenile and ignorant?

and it seems that one of our newer, more sharp edged posters is doctoring quotes AND the handles of fellow members.

May you burn in hell (for about two weeks) for that, herasswipe.