Dick Cheney beats the war drums

American casualties in Afghanistan could have been reduced had Obama listened to his military advisors who wanted significantly more boots on the ground under Obama's "surge".

Obama ordered 30,000 additional soldiers; Gen. McChrystal (and others) said 40,000 were needed to safely accomplish the mission. But Herr General Barack Hussein Obama undercut the necessary force by more than 25%, while keeping the mission the same. Our troops were put at risk because Obama went against the military advice of those in the field.

And what happened next ?

US casualties skyrocketed....75% of US Afghan casualties came AFTER Obama's under-manned surge - FACT JACK!



http://cnsnews.com/news/article/ali-...oops-increased Originally Posted by Whirlaway

I don't guess you've considered the fact that the entire surge strategy was based on the concept of finding, fixing and fighting the insurgents? Which, by definition, means an increase in casualties....since the strategy requires US troopers to engage in combat with the insurgents? Get it?

Fucking simpleton. Stay down in the shallow end of the pool with your pointless sloganeering and empty copy-cat rhetoric. You're an idiot.

Oh, I hurt your pussy again, Timmy. Nope, you are here to explore the rabbit hole called "Blame Bush."

The truth stings Timmy. Next time I'll use vaseline. Originally Posted by gnadfly

The only "rabbit hole" I'm seeing is the constant conservative attempts to deflect blame for the catastrophically bad decisions involving Iraq made by an administration that they elected. Sorry, but it's just not as simple as you bleating "Blame Bush".....all that does is save you the trouble of trying to formulate a response that defends the fucked-up policies that got us where we are today.....fucked-up policies that the administration you elected and supported thought up and implemented.

And, save the "I hurt your pussy" stuff.....it just makes you look even more stupid. When you can deal with my shit, let me know....by posting up something that merits a response and doesn't include cretin comments about Vaseline.

Cut corporate tax rates; get people back working, stop the flood of illegal immigration that is driving down wages of working poor, cut back on the welfare state (individual and corporate). Down size Federal agencies, transfer power to the states (in accordance with the constitution), promote energy independence (drill baby drill, solar, wind, nuclear)................

National defense is one of the primary requirements of our constitution; Obama phones and other Progressive non-sense is not !

Basically get the government the fuck out of the way and let the great American economy roar. Originally Posted by Whirlaway

Same shit, different day.

Talking points out of the check out line magazines at the Gun store..

Talking points out of the check out line magazines at the Gun store.. Originally Posted by Yssup Rider

He never posts anything that's not a talking point he cribs from one of his psycho conservative crazy web sites. Whirlytard longs to be RWW blogger with his own website and he pretends this is it.....

No I considered the fact that the surge strategy was more dangerous and could result in higher casualties....but Obama obviously didn't, otherwise he would have never undercut the requested troops by 25%. In addition to sending under manned troops into a more dangerous war strategy, he also put more restrictive rules of engagement on our military.

In summary, Obama set our foot soldiers up for more casualties and deaths.

No wonder war casualties in Afghanistan sky rocketed under Obama's miserable leadership - a very dangerous Commander In Chief who is a poser.

Shades of Vietnam: Spike in U.S. troop deaths tied to stricter rules of engagement

The number of U.S. battlefield fatalities exceeded the rate at which troop strength surged in 2009 and 2010, prompting national security analysts to assert that coinciding stricter rules of engagement led to more deaths.

A connection between the sharp increase in American deaths and restrictive rules of engagement is difficult to confirm. More deaths surely stemmed from ramped-up counterterrorism raids and the Taliban’s response with more homemade bombs, the No. 1 killer of NATO forces in Afghanistan.


But it is clear that the rules of engagement, which restrain troops from firing in order to spare civilian casualties, cut back on airstrikes and artillery strikes — the types of support that protect troops during raids and ambushes.

“In Afghanistan, the [rules of engagement] that were put in place in 2009 and 2010 have created hesitation and confusion for our war fighters,” said Wayne Simmons, a retired U.S. intelligence officer who worked in NATO headquarters in Kabul as the rules took effect, first under Army Gen. Stanley M. McChrystal, then Army Gen. David H. Petraeus.

Read more: http://www.washingtontimes.com/news/...#ixzz3D7303Uho
Follow us: @washtimes on Twitter

I don't guess you've considered the fact that the entire surge strategy was based on the concept of finding, fixing and fighting the insurgents? Which, by definition, means an increase in casualties....since the strategy requires US troopers to engage in combat with the insurgents? Get it?

Fucking simpleton. Stay down in the shallow end of the pool with your pointless sloganeering and empty copy-cat rhetoric. You're an idiot. Originally Posted by timpage

[QUOTE=Whirlaway;1055792789]No I considered the fact that the surge strategy was more dangerous and could result in higher casualties....but Obama obviously didn't, otherwise he would have never undercut the requested troops by 25%. In addition to sending under manned troops into a more dangerous war strategy, he also put in place more restrictive rules of engagement.

In summary, Obama set our foot soldiers up for more casualties.

No wonder war casualties in Afghanistan sky rocketed under Obama's miserable leadership - a very dangerous Commander In Chief who is a poser.


<B>

Shades of Vietnam: Spike in U.S. troop deaths tied to stricter rules of engagement

</B>

The number of U.S. battlefield fatalities exceeded the rate at which troop strength surged in 2009 and 2010, prompting national security analysts to assert that coinciding stricter rules of engagement led to more deaths.

A connection between the sharp increase in American deaths and restrictive rules of engagement is difficult to confirm. More deaths surely stemmed from ramped-up counterterrorism raids and the Taliban’s response with more homemade bombs, the No. 1 killer of NATO forces in Afghanistan.


But it is clear that the rules of engagement, which restrain troops from firing in order to spare civilian casualties, cut back on airstrikes and artillery strikes — the types of support that protect troops during raids and ambushes.

“In Afghanistan, the [rules of engagement] that were put in place in 2009 and 2010 have created hesitation and confusion for our war fighters,” said Wayne Simmons, a retired U.S. intelligence officer who worked in NATO headquarters in Kabul as the rules took effect, first under Army Gen. Stanley M. McChrystal, then Army Gen. David H. Petraeus.

Read more: http://www.washingtontimes.com/news/...#ixzz3D7303Uho
Follow us: @washtimes on Twitter[/QUOTE

From your own post:

A connection between the sharp increase in American deaths and restrictive rules of engagement is difficult to confirm. More deaths surely stemmed from ramped-up counterterrorism raids and the Taliban’s response with more homemade bombs, the No. 1 killer of NATO forces in Afghanistan.

You got anything else?

You would be the lone one standing by a stupid statement that "more restrictive rules of engagement don't endanger ground troops"...

But then you are stupid.

Same old douchebag, only now he quacks from the cheap seats, thank god.

http://www.nbcnews.com/politics/firs...re-war-n200111 Originally Posted by timpage

Who beat the drums of war?

"One way or the other, we are determined to deny Iraq the capacity to
develop weapons of mass destruction and the missiles to deliver them.
That is our bottom line."
- President Clinton, Feb. 4, 1998

"If Saddam rejects peace and we have to use force, our purpose is
clear. We want to seriously diminish the threat posed by Iraq's
weapons of mass destruction program."
- President Clinton, Feb. 17, 1998

"Iraq is a long way from [here], but what happens there matters a
great deal here. For the risks 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."
- Madeline Albright, Feb 18, 1998

"He will use those weapons of mass destruction again, as he has ten
times since 1983."
- Sandy Berger, Clinton National Security Adviser, Feb, 18, 1998

"[W]e urge you, after consulting with Congress, and consistent with
the U.S. Constitution and laws, to take necessary actions (including,
if appropriate, air and missile strikes on suspect Iraqi sites) to
respond effectively to the threat posed by Iraq's refusal to end its
weapons of mass destruction programs."
Letter to President Clinton, signed by Sens. Carl Levin, Tom
Daschle, John Kerry, and others Oct. 9, 1998

"Saddam Hussein has been engaged in the development of weapons of
mass destruction technology which is a threat to countries in the
region and he has made a mockery of the weapons inspection process."
-Rep. Nancy Pelosi (D, CA), Dec. 16, 1998

"Hussein has ... chosen to spend his money on building weapons of
mass destruction and palaces for his cronies."
Madeline Albright, Clinton Secretary of State, Nov. 10, 1999

"There is no doubt that . Saddam Hussein has invigorated his weapons
programs. Reports indicate that biological, chemical and nuclear
programs continue apace and may be back to pre-Gulf War status. In
addition, Saddam continues to redefine delivery systems and is
doubtless using the cover of a licit missile program to develop
longer-range missiles that will threaten the United States and our
allies." Letter to President Bush, Signed by Sen. Bob Graham (D, FL,) and
others, December 5, 2001

"We begin with the common belief that Saddam Hussein is a tyrant and
a threat to the peace and stability of the region. He has ignored the
mandated of the United Nations and is building weapons of mass
destruction and the means of delivering them."
- Sen. Carl Levin (D, MI), Sept. 19, 2002

"We know that he has stored secret supplies of biological and
chemical weapons throughout his country."
- Al Gore, Sept. 23, 2002

"Iraq's search for weapons of mass destruction has proven impossible
to deter and we should assume that it will continue for as long as
Saddam is in power."
- Al Gore, Sept. 23, 2002

"We have known for many years that Saddam Hussein is seeking and
developing weapons of mass destruction."
- Sen. Ted Kennedy (D, MA), Sept. 27, 2002

"The last UN weapons inspectors left Iraq in October of 1998. We are
confident that Saddam Hussein retains some stockpiles of chemical and
biological weapons, and that he has since embarked on a crash course
to build up his chemical and biological warfare capabilities.
Intelligence reports indicate that he is seeking nuclear weapons..."
- Sen. Robert Byrd (D, WV), Oct. 3, 2002

"I will be voting to give the President of the United States the
authority to use force-- if necessary-- to disarm Saddam Hussein
because I believe that a deadly arsenal of weapons of mass
destruction in his hands is a real and grave threat to our security."
- Sen. John F. Kerry (D, MA), Oct. 9, 2002

"There is unmistakable evidence that Saddam Hussein is working
aggressively to develop nuclear weapons and will likely have nuclear
weapons within the next five years ... We also should remember we
have always underestimated the progress Saddam has made in
development of weapons of mass destruction."
- Sen. Jay Rockefeller (D, WV), Oct 10, 2002

"He has systematically violated, over the course of the past 11
years, every significant UN resolution that has demanded that he
disarm and destroy his chemical and biological weapons, and any
nuclear capacity. This he has refused to do" Rep.
- Henry Waxman (D, CA), Oct. 10, 2002

"In the four years since the inspectors left, intelligence reports
show that Saddam Hussein has worked to rebuild his chemical and
biological weapons stock, his missile delivery capability, and his
nuclear program. He has also given aid, comfort, and sanctuary to
terrorists, including al Qaeda members. It is clear, however, that if
left unchecked, Saddam Hussein will continue to increase his capacity
to wage biological and chemical warfare, and will keep trying to
develop nuclear weapons."
- Sen. Hillary Clinton (D, NY), Oct 10, 2002

"We are in possession of what I think to be compelling evidence that
Saddam Hussein has, and has had for a number of years, a developing
capacity for the production and storage of weapons of mass
destruction."
- Sen. Bob Graham (D, FL), Dec. 8, 2002

"Without question, we need to disarm Saddam Hussein. He is a brutal,
murderous dictator, leading an oppressive regime. He presents a
particularly grievous threat because he is so consistently prone to
miscalculation ... And now he is miscalculating America's response to
his continued deceit and his consistent grasp for weapons of mass
destruction. So the threat of Saddam Hussein with weapons of mass
destruction is real."
- Sen. John F. Kerry (D, MA), Jan. 23. 2003

Who beat the drums of war?

"One way or the other, we are determined to deny Iraq the capacity to
develop weapons of mass destruction and the missiles to deliver them.
That is our bottom line."
- President Clinton, Feb. 4, 1998

"If Saddam rejects peace and we have to use force, our purpose is
clear. We want to seriously diminish the threat posed by Iraq's
weapons of mass destruction program."
- President Clinton, Feb. 17, 1998

"Iraq is a long way from [here], but what happens there matters a
great deal here. For the risks 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."
- Madeline Albright, Feb 18, 1998

"He will use those weapons of mass destruction again, as he has ten
times since 1983."
- Sandy Berger, Clinton National Security Adviser, Feb, 18, 1998

"[W]e urge you, after consulting with Congress, and consistent with
the U.S. Constitution and laws, to take necessary actions (including,
if appropriate, air and missile strikes on suspect Iraqi sites) to
respond effectively to the threat posed by Iraq's refusal to end its
weapons of mass destruction programs."
Letter to President Clinton, signed by Sens. Carl Levin, Tom
Daschle, John Kerry, and others Oct. 9, 1998

"Saddam Hussein has been engaged in the development of weapons of
mass destruction technology which is a threat to countries in the
region and he has made a mockery of the weapons inspection process."
-Rep. Nancy Pelosi (D, CA), Dec. 16, 1998

"Hussein has ... chosen to spend his money on building weapons of
mass destruction and palaces for his cronies."
Madeline Albright, Clinton Secretary of State, Nov. 10, 1999

"There is no doubt that . Saddam Hussein has invigorated his weapons
programs. Reports indicate that biological, chemical and nuclear
programs continue apace and may be back to pre-Gulf War status. In
addition, Saddam continues to redefine delivery systems and is
doubtless using the cover of a licit missile program to develop
longer-range missiles that will threaten the United States and our
allies." Letter to President Bush, Signed by Sen. Bob Graham (D, FL,) and
others, December 5, 2001

"We begin with the common belief that Saddam Hussein is a tyrant and
a threat to the peace and stability of the region. He has ignored the
mandated of the United Nations and is building weapons of mass
destruction and the means of delivering them."
- Sen. Carl Levin (D, MI), Sept. 19, 2002

"We know that he has stored secret supplies of biological and
chemical weapons throughout his country."
- Al Gore, Sept. 23, 2002

"Iraq's search for weapons of mass destruction has proven impossible
to deter and we should assume that it will continue for as long as
Saddam is in power."
- Al Gore, Sept. 23, 2002

"We have known for many years that Saddam Hussein is seeking and
developing weapons of mass destruction."
- Sen. Ted Kennedy (D, MA), Sept. 27, 2002

"The last UN weapons inspectors left Iraq in October of 1998. We are
confident that Saddam Hussein retains some stockpiles of chemical and
biological weapons, and that he has since embarked on a crash course
to build up his chemical and biological warfare capabilities.
Intelligence reports indicate that he is seeking nuclear weapons..."
- Sen. Robert Byrd (D, WV), Oct. 3, 2002

"I will be voting to give the President of the United States the
authority to use force-- if necessary-- to disarm Saddam Hussein
because I believe that a deadly arsenal of weapons of mass
destruction in his hands is a real and grave threat to our security."
- Sen. John F. Kerry (D, MA), Oct. 9, 2002

"There is unmistakable evidence that Saddam Hussein is working
aggressively to develop nuclear weapons and will likely have nuclear
weapons within the next five years ... We also should remember we
have always underestimated the progress Saddam has made in
development of weapons of mass destruction."
- Sen. Jay Rockefeller (D, WV), Oct 10, 2002

"He has systematically violated, over the course of the past 11
years, every significant UN resolution that has demanded that he
disarm and destroy his chemical and biological weapons, and any
nuclear capacity. This he has refused to do" Rep.
- Henry Waxman (D, CA), Oct. 10, 2002

"In the four years since the inspectors left, intelligence reports
show that Saddam Hussein has worked to rebuild his chemical and
biological weapons stock, his missile delivery capability, and his
nuclear program. He has also given aid, comfort, and sanctuary to
terrorists, including al Qaeda members. It is clear, however, that if
left unchecked, Saddam Hussein will continue to increase his capacity
to wage biological and chemical warfare, and will keep trying to
develop nuclear weapons."
- Sen. Hillary Clinton (D, NY), Oct 10, 2002

"We are in possession of what I think to be compelling evidence that
Saddam Hussein has, and has had for a number of years, a developing
capacity for the production and storage of weapons of mass
destruction."
- Sen. Bob Graham (D, FL), Dec. 8, 2002

"Without question, we need to disarm Saddam Hussein. He is a brutal,
murderous dictator, leading an oppressive regime. He presents a
particularly grievous threat because he is so consistently prone to
miscalculation ... And now he is miscalculating America's response to
his continued deceit and his consistent grasp for weapons of mass
destruction. So the threat of Saddam Hussein with weapons of mass
destruction is real."
- Sen. John F. Kerry (D, MA), Jan. 23. 2003

Originally Posted by TheDaliLama

Dali, you can bend over backwards and kiss the ground in your attempts to blame the Iraq debacle on everybody but the person who is most responsible.... but facts are facts. There is never an invasion of Iraq without your boy Cheney. Shit, look at today's newspaper. He wants to invade again. It's on him....and you .....since you worship the old douchebag.

You would be the lone one standing by a stupid statement that "more restrictive rules of engagement don't endanger ground troops"...

But then you are stupid. Originally Posted by Whirlaway

And, you would be the one that would think that unrestricted rules of engagement that result in increased collateral damage and civilian deaths in any way advance the ball in a war where success depends on gaining the trust and confidence of the local population.

But, then you're far too stupid to understand that, aren't you?

And, you would be the one that would think that unrestricted rules of engagement that result in increased collateral damage and civilian deaths in any way advance the ball in a war where success depends on gaining the trust and confidence of the local population.

But, then you're far too stupid to understand that, aren't you? Originally Posted by timpage

Timmie, let's stipulate you occasionally get a point or two right, notwithstanding the fact you may not understand the big picture. I wish we hadn't gone into the war, either, at this point.
Even if it is all Bush and Cheney's fault, Obama was elected to solve every problem, no matter who created it, and he proposed that he would solve them if we elected him. Hell, I'm glad he pulled the troops but in retrospect he fucked that up!!!
Why would anyone want to agree with you when you are so disagreeable, right or wrong? You are so hateful you couldn't expect much cooperation from someone when you call them a name on virtually every post.
This is about you, not me, so it really doesn't solve your problem if you point out that I'm hateful at times, too.

Who beat the drums of war?

"One way or the other, we are determined to deny Iraq the capacity to
develop weapons of mass destruction and the missiles to deliver them.
That is our bottom line."
- President Clinton, Feb. 4, 1998

"If Saddam rejects peace and we have to use force, our purpose is
clear. We want to seriously diminish the threat posed by Iraq's
weapons of mass destruction program."
- President Clinton, Feb. 17, 1998

"Iraq is a long way from [here], but what happens there matters a
great deal here. For the risks 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."
- Madeline Albright, Feb 18, 1998

"He will use those weapons of mass destruction again, as he has ten
times since 1983."
- Sandy Berger, Clinton National Security Adviser, Feb, 18, 1998

"[W]e urge you, after consulting with Congress, and consistent with
the U.S. Constitution and laws, to take necessary actions (including,
if appropriate, air and missile strikes on suspect Iraqi sites) to
respond effectively to the threat posed by Iraq's refusal to end its
weapons of mass destruction programs."
Letter to President Clinton, signed by Sens. Carl Levin, Tom
Daschle, John Kerry, and others Oct. 9, 1998

"Saddam Hussein has been engaged in the development of weapons of
mass destruction technology which is a threat to countries in the
region and he has made a mockery of the weapons inspection process."
-Rep. Nancy Pelosi (D, CA), Dec. 16, 1998

"Hussein has ... chosen to spend his money on building weapons of
mass destruction and palaces for his cronies."
Madeline Albright, Clinton Secretary of State, Nov. 10, 1999

"There is no doubt that . Saddam Hussein has invigorated his weapons
programs. Reports indicate that biological, chemical and nuclear
programs continue apace and may be back to pre-Gulf War status. In
addition, Saddam continues to redefine delivery systems and is
doubtless using the cover of a licit missile program to develop
longer-range missiles that will threaten the United States and our
allies." Letter to President Bush, Signed by Sen. Bob Graham (D, FL,) and
others, December 5, 2001

"We begin with the common belief that Saddam Hussein is a tyrant and
a threat to the peace and stability of the region. He has ignored the
mandated of the United Nations and is building weapons of mass
destruction and the means of delivering them."
- Sen. Carl Levin (D, MI), Sept. 19, 2002

"We know that he has stored secret supplies of biological and
chemical weapons throughout his country."
- Al Gore, Sept. 23, 2002

"Iraq's search for weapons of mass destruction has proven impossible
to deter and we should assume that it will continue for as long as
Saddam is in power."
- Al Gore, Sept. 23, 2002

"We have known for many years that Saddam Hussein is seeking and
developing weapons of mass destruction."
- Sen. Ted Kennedy (D, MA), Sept. 27, 2002

"The last UN weapons inspectors left Iraq in October of 1998. We are
confident that Saddam Hussein retains some stockpiles of chemical and
biological weapons, and that he has since embarked on a crash course
to build up his chemical and biological warfare capabilities.
Intelligence reports indicate that he is seeking nuclear weapons..."
- Sen. Robert Byrd (D, WV), Oct. 3, 2002

"I will be voting to give the President of the United States the
authority to use force-- if necessary-- to disarm Saddam Hussein
because I believe that a deadly arsenal of weapons of mass
destruction in his hands is a real and grave threat to our security."
- Sen. John F. Kerry (D, MA), Oct. 9, 2002

"There is unmistakable evidence that Saddam Hussein is working
aggressively to develop nuclear weapons and will likely have nuclear
weapons within the next five years ... We also should remember we
have always underestimated the progress Saddam has made in
development of weapons of mass destruction."
- Sen. Jay Rockefeller (D, WV), Oct 10, 2002

"He has systematically violated, over the course of the past 11
years, every significant UN resolution that has demanded that he
disarm and destroy his chemical and biological weapons, and any
nuclear capacity. This he has refused to do" Rep.
- Henry Waxman (D, CA), Oct. 10, 2002

"In the four years since the inspectors left, intelligence reports
show that Saddam Hussein has worked to rebuild his chemical and
biological weapons stock, his missile delivery capability, and his
nuclear program. He has also given aid, comfort, and sanctuary to
terrorists, including al Qaeda members. It is clear, however, that if
left unchecked, Saddam Hussein will continue to increase his capacity
to wage biological and chemical warfare, and will keep trying to
develop nuclear weapons."
- Sen. Hillary Clinton (D, NY), Oct 10, 2002

"We are in possession of what I think to be compelling evidence that
Saddam Hussein has, and has had for a number of years, a developing
capacity for the production and storage of weapons of mass
destruction."
- Sen. Bob Graham (D, FL), Dec. 8, 2002

"Without question, we need to disarm Saddam Hussein. He is a brutal,
murderous dictator, leading an oppressive regime. He presents a
particularly grievous threat because he is so consistently prone to
miscalculation ... And now he is miscalculating America's response to
his continued deceit and his consistent grasp for weapons of mass
destruction. So the threat of Saddam Hussein with weapons of mass
destruction is real."
- Sen. John F. Kerry (D, MA), Jan. 23. 2003

Originally Posted by TheDaliLama

Funny shit LMAO.

Timmie, let's stipulate you occasionally get a point or two right, notwithstanding the fact you may not understand the big picture. I wish we hadn't gone into the war, either, at this point.
Even if it is all Bush and Cheney's fault, Obama was elected to solve every problem, no matter who created it, and he proposed that he would solve them if we elected him. Hell, I'm glad he pulled the troops but in retrospect he fucked that up!!!
Why would anyone want to agree with you when you are so disagreeable, right or wrong? You are so hateful you couldn't expect much cooperation from someone when you call them a name on virtually every post.
This is about you, not me, so it really doesn't solve your problem if you point out that I'm hateful at times, too. Originally Posted by Jewish Lawyer

You have obviously mistaken me for someone that gives a shit about whether you and the rest of your band of idiots agree or disagree with me. I don't. And, I've missed your posts whining about all the insults and name-calling that you and the rest of the pea-brains engage in around here. Fuck you.

^^^^^^^^Now that's funny!