Obama Sends 1500 troops back to Iraq

Yup 1500 Set's of boots on the ground & $5.6 BILLION.

http://www.reuters.com/article/2014/...0IR22I20141107

Nation building in a region that has extreme hate for us and extreme hate for each other is a loosing proposition. This huge mistake gets bigger.

Obama by virtue is an oxymoron. He's basically gone back on everything he's said.

Obama lied and soldiers died.

^^^^ I agree^^^^
He campaigns under the promise that he's going to end our occupation in Iraq. And then does the exact opposite.

I'm not opposed to helping the Iraqis in the form of air support and or drone attacks but I don't think we should waste any more American lives ( boots on the ground) trying to liberate a country. I'm tired of the US being the one that has to solve all of the worlds problems. It's nice for Obama to offer up our troops lives and billions of dollars, when he's not the one to have to pay the bill. The " you're writing checks your body can't cash" seems appropriate.

I'm totally against sending troops back in, but now that Obama has the Republican mandate maybe he's just playing along. Quite frankly I hope he does everything the Republicans ask with no vetos. The sooner we figure out how that works out, the better.

It isn't just the region that hates us. It is the religion.

"Quite frankly I hope he does everything the Republicans ask with no vetos. "

Fly, Using your argument with Bush, It would still be all BHO's fault cuz it happened on his watch. Or... was Iraq the Dem's fault cuz they were in congress and voted for the war?

There is no question that the fault for the Iraq blunder falls squarely on Bush's shoulders. Anyone who argues otherwise is delusional. I was referring to the number of Republicans claiming Obama pulled the troops out too soon. I don't really think that Obama sent the 1500 back in because of the elections. My statement was in jest over the fact they even when Obama does what Republicans would do they still complain.

Our military is all volunteer...they know what they signed up for...things change and Obama is rolling with the punches. Bombs from 35000 feet just can't do it all. If Obama was white would the republicans agree with him?

GOP supporters have been begging to get troops back into Iraq for a year. BEGGING!! Now that Obama goes along with what GOP voters, who call him soft on Muslims, have asked for desperately you are all going to say that he's wasting tax money. Which is it??? Is he a secret Muslim who wants to allow his brothers to take over America or is he wasting our money sending troops to kill the Muslims?? You want it both ways but it's ridiculous and makes you all sound like dopes.

Originally Posted by bftskir

Our military is all volunteer...they know what they signed up for...things change and Obama is rolling with the punches. Bombs from 35000 feet just can't do it all. If Obama was white would the republicans agree with him?

Are you seriously suggesting that race has anything to do with it?
This is what happens when you elect a man with NO experience ,NO military training ,and NO managerially skills. Anyone with his background would be clueless about running a small business much less a country . The fact that he refuses to listen to the experts and thinks he knows it all has got him where he is today. This is all on BO George Bush Has been out for 6 years you cant blame him anymore.

Originally Posted by Froggy

This is all on BO George Bush Has been out for 6 years you cant blame him anymore.

It was someone from the right that brought Bush into this. Blaming Bush isn't about expecting Bush to clean up the mess. It's about the hypocrisy of the Republican party that claims Obama is doing such a bad job when they can't even admit it was a Republican President that screwed up far worse. Where is your credibility? There are people who don't want US soldiers in Iraq and didn't want a deal to be made to keep them there. No more right wing abuse of the military and tax payers spending massive amounts on these nations is a big reason Obama got elected in the first place.

Bush was not my favorite president in fact his last 4 years were a complete disaster. The fact is Obama just continued with the same errors and compounded them by massive spending and debt, open boarders, drone attacks, and sending even more of our boys to their deaths. And then the ultimate blunder telling the enemy the date when we will withdraw. Well it worked he got reelected and now its all coming apart .Its no surprise we are going back show me any military officer that recommended this course of action. In fact show me any of Obama's decisions were the right way to go for our country. We are only doing as well as we are inspire of Obama's administration not because of it. The Dems have run it all for the last 6 years how is that working out for you?

It's been working well for me Froggy. My 401k was cut in half by 2007 under Bush. Now it has made all of that back plus half again under Obama. My small business is also doing very well. How many of you have made a killing in the stock market over the last 6 years? Sometime as much as 25% per year would you say? That's ridiculous growth. I'd say it's working very well for me Froggy.

Gas prices?

Froggy, this is how it's working out....

http://jeff61b.hubpages.com/hub/14-F...ople-Dont-Know

Bush's disaster was the consequence of his first four years. Also WRT you claiming that the announcement of the exit timing was Obama's blunder. Again not true. The exact timing was an agreement penned with Iraq by Bush. That agreement spelled out the exact date our troops were withdrawn. The only thing that Obama did was *not* take extraordinary measures to override that agreement. Which is exactly what the people who elected Obama expected of him.

Quite frankly, if you didn't vote for Obama your opinion on this doesn't count. He did what the people who put him in office, put him there for.

Maybe the invasion was a bad idea, again the public will never know the whole truth because of national security confidentiality, but I still say there was a good chance they had weapons of mass destruction. However, the plan to pull the troops was not a good idea either. http://buzzpo.com/remember-george-w-...-obama-wanted/

Anyone could have predicted that things would fall apart when the US troops left. What nobody could predict was how many US lives, American dollars, and years it would have taken to stabilize the region so we could pull out. Or even if that would ever be possible. When it comes to Iraq there are no "good" ideas coming from anywhere.

Originally Posted by bftskir

Our military is all volunteer...they know what they signed up for...things change and Obama is rolling with the punches. Bombs from 35000 feet just can't do it all. If Obama was white would the republicans agree with him?

Deep thoughts there......

22 years ago I voluntarily signed up for the Depertment of "Defense". There's nothing defensive about continually being sent over to countries that hate us while walking door to door wondering which one of us is going to get shot first.

Did you think you had signed up for a jelly of the month club Brian, or did you know that you could be sent to a country that hates us while walking door to door wondering if you'd be shot? I'm pretty sure that everyone knows what's involved with military service by the time they reach the age of eligibility. My 11 year old son has known since he was 8. In other words, thank you for your service but at the same time, what the **** is your point? I have never supported sending our troops to any foreign war and I was too young to vote for the pricks who sent the CIA to start this mess in the 70's by installing puppet regimes that hurt the people they were supposed to be helping in the name of procuring cheap oil for American oil companies.

Jelly of the month club sounds nice Eric. Unfortunatley you have to be home occasionally to greet the delivery man. :-)

My point could be summed up with the word "continually" in my first post.

Brian when you voluntarily signed up for the dept of defense what did you think you were going to do?

I had to sign up for the draft or face a $250000 fine +
It was the Selective Service System back then which I thought was a dating service.

As I stated before the country is doing as good as it is in spite of Obama's administration. Lets look at some of his accomplishments.
1- Obama Care [ the best is yet to come]
2- No budget for 6 years and a 17 trillion dollar debt
3- Open boarders No control of illegal aliens already hear
4- EPA out of control
5 IRS going after conservative groups and giving a pass to liberals
6- Benghazi
7-Fast and Furious
8-Keystone Pipeline
9-. Solyndra
10-VA scandal
To name a few there are plenty more, bottom line there are some that are doing well under Obama most are not . And who is going to pay the bill when it comes due certainly not the minimum wage workers or the unemployed.

Originally Posted by bftskir

Brian when you voluntarily signed up for the dept of defense what did you think you were going to do?

That right. Our country has a history of abusing the military that dates at least back to the 60's. Did you expect better?

Froggy, I'll take all of those over the results of the previous Republican administration. And #2 is the consequence of the previous administration. You don't seem to understand that debt is the result of deficit spending. And deficit spending soared both in percentage and absolute numbers to historic levels while Bush was in office. You actually have back to Reagan to see that sort of thing previously. What exactly does "conservative" mean? Stunk in the mud?

Surprised you didn't throw free phones in there. That's just another one the Republicans like to blame on Obama even though it's the consequence of a law passed in 1996.

John I am not delusional. Your point of view is myopic. 40 of the major countries in the world, NATO, the world's intelligence community, and bipartisan review in Congress all thought that the Iraq action was appropriate. It was a worldwide consensus. By comparison, BHO wanted to go to war with Assad over gassing a few thousand rebels before Congress (in part Democrat controlled) told him sit down and shut up.

In terms of bringing Bush in, that was my bad, I was going along with John's jest.

Eric, on a serious note,
I haven't noticed the right begging for the return of troops. I can't speak for the entire right, but I wanted ISIL confronted and object to the way BHO has handled Iraq. He abandoned Maliki and made it clear Iraq would be unsupported after the pull out date. He forced Maliki to create a government that wasn't inclusive. When we pulled out, BHO took full credit for the withdrawal touting the fulfillment of his campaign promises. When it went bad, he said it was all Bush's fault that the date was set in stone. If he had put in the proper work, he could have gotten the date extended. That is, Bill Clinton could have gotten it done if he was in charge.
Then, as ISIL forms he ignored them, played hookie at the President's Dailey Security briefings and was a non-participant when he was there, and called ISIL the JV team until they have carved out a nation between Syria and Iraq. He repeatedly insists that there will be no boots on the ground. Then, he puts 1500 advisers, then 1500 more. All the while, spelling out in Press Conferences the limits of our involvement alerting ISIL.

I want the US to assist in a limited capacity but I can't trust BHO to be in charge. He lies and drifts along in the wind of today’s public pressure and then changes tomorrow. This appears to be the typical mission creep. He is a lousy CEO because he is lazy and has no moral compass and has poor counsel.

In terms of the money and lives, we are in a conflict with radical Islam and the money is better spent at the beginning. ISIL is out to kill all infidels which is those who are not their particular brand of Islam. They have seized assets in the range of billions. Look what OBL did with the internet and a few terrorist cells. We are in grave danger.


"Quite frankly, if you didn't vote for Obama your opinion on this doesn't count."

Wrong! and ignorant. The people elected a republican congress and handed the Liberals a resounding defeat in both Congress and the Governors races. A few years in office and the libs have managed to snatch defeat from the jaws of victory.

Terry, it boils down to one simple question. Would we have gone to war in Iraq if Gore had won vs Bush. I think it's delusional to believe that Bush was not the key man in sending us to Iraq. Simply put... no Bush, no Iraq war. It doesn't get any simpler than being able to definitely identify the single component that created a problem. With most issues it's not that easy. But this one is.

Personally I agree with forcing the Iraqis to take charge of the situation. There did not appear to be any other way to impress upon them the significance of defending themselves. After years of training and years of recognizing that they were not getting much out of it, I'm thinking they needed a kick in the a$$. It is both true that Obama gets credit for sticking to his word of pulling us out, and the timing was not his decision. As you noted he could have gone against his campaign promise and taken measures to keep us there longer, but in the absence of doing so was constrained by the predetermined date. I know that's a tough concept to grasp when you want Obama to take the blame. When I said "your opinion doesn't count" I'm talking about Obama pulling out of Iraq. He stuck to his promise to the people who elected him. That's all there is to it.

Who cares about defeat. I have little doubt that in future elections the Republicans will be handing the reins to the Democrats. That's the way it works. Nobody has a clue what they want from govt. I'm apathetic to the whole situation. Right or left has little impact on my life. My participation is more about countering the bullsh*t that sways people's opinions, rather than the facts. The idea that a few people dying in Benghazi or F&F is as significant to the American people as trillions wasted and thousands dying is pretty absurd. Personally I can't see how Republicans can have any credibility until they are ready to get on board with reality, recognize the gravity of the mess their President made, and demonstrate they have the lessons of the past to build on. Right now their primary argument seems to be stop blaming and move forward blind of the past mistakes.

The Republicans already exposed the flaws of putting a guy in charge who appeared to have a moral compass and no intelligence. So a moral compass doesn't appear to be the saving grace. What Bush did was so incompetent that it suggested treason for personal gain. And why shouldn't a President respond to public opinion? LBJ didn't respond to the public opinion of war protesters and it resulted in 10's of thousands of American lives lost for absolutely nothing. The opposite of mission creep is embarking on a predefined mission when you don't have all the facts.

John, (with your is Gore was president) you have engaged in a hypothetical and therefor can’t know the answer . The fact that most of the world agreed with Bush is overwhelming evidence. Your opinion to some could be exactly the type of faulty BS type opinions you oppose.

In terms of party line, if the congress remains conservative, I will probably vote Dem for Pres.as long as it is a moderate.

Bush was not void of intelligence as he was a Yale grad and Harvard Business School. I know that it is essential as a lib to hate your opponent and think him evil rather than just disagree, but the fact is he was not incompetent or treasonous. The great recession at the end of his term was in large part from the faulty home loans which had been escalating for years.

.BTW. Your link is highly partisan and proof that statisticians are the third type of liars. Most of the links they offer as proof are opt/ed pieces.

Terry, seriously? You have no opinion on if Gore would have taken us into Iraq? If that's the case then anything you advocate is purely hypothetical and deserves no consideration. Iraq came up out of the blue. No connection whatsoever with 9/11. Bush even walked away from Afghanistan to focus on Iraq.

WRT being a lib wanting to hate my opponent. When Bush spearheaded the invasion of Iraq, I supported him. Even when Bush came up for the second term I supported his reelection to let him finish the job. My disillusionment with the executive office only came after I gained an education as to what the culture of Iraq was and the unbelievable unlikelihood that anyone with any knowledge beforehand should have known. Previous to that I really had zero interest in politics. I had a naive trust in the executive office that wasn't warranted because I wasn't the least bit interested in politics.

After gaining an understanding that the majority of Iraq was oppressed and aligned with the "axis of evil" I realized that removing Saddam and intending to build a democratic society that would protect the rights of all was incredibly incompetent. That's why I claimed it was so incompetent that it suggested treason. Hard to reconcile being a Yale grad and doing something that stupid.

Please refute the "facts" in my link, and show me the "lies". Is the stock market really still in the 8 thousands and we are all being lied to? Is the deficit spending actually climbing and we are being told it's going down? Even if the links are editorial pieces, it should be easy to find the facts that prove they are lies.

My understanding is that troops are being sent because the Pentagon (also know as the experts) requested them - Froggy stated - "The fact that he refuses to listen to the experts and thinks he knows it all".

Terry you accuse John of engaging in hypotheticals but state in your post "ISIL forms he ignored them, played hookie at the President's Dailey Security briefings and was a non-participant when he was there" Since you are clearly at the presidential briefing why dont you share with us what goes on in them?

Originally Posted by fly135

Froggy, I'll take all of those over the results of the previous Republican administration. And #2 is the consequence of the previous administration. You don't seem to understand that debt is the result of deficit spending. And deficit spending soared both in percentage and absolute numbers to historic levels while Bush was in office. You actually have back to Reagan to see that sort of thing previously. What exactly does "conservative" mean? Stunk in the mud?

Surprised you didn't throw free phones in there. That's just another one the Republicans like to blame on Obama even though it's the consequence of a law passed in 1996.

You keep trying to bring bush in you do know he hasn't been in office for 6 years now . As for # 2 when bush left office we had a record 1.2 trillion dollar deficit 800 billion was the bailout, seems like pocket change compared to 17 trillion . Was Obama handed load of problems ? I would say yes but how many were caused or made worse by the tag team of Pelosi and Reed that took control of the Senate and House in 2006. As far as Incompetent and treasonous look no further that the current president and most of his appointments.

[QUOTE=whiteflashwatersports1;1897461]My understanding is that troops are being sent because the Pentagon (also know as the experts) requested them - Froggy stated - "The fact that he refuses to listen to the experts and thinks he knows it all".

Who is the commander and chief?

Wow Froggy!!! You just tipped your hand and now we all know how utterly stupid you are. 1.2 trillion defecit vs 17 trillion????? Do you know the difference between a national deficit and the national debt?? You obviously don't but if you ask any of the six graders in my son's class they can all tell you. A defecit is the annual difference between government spending and the amount of all types of taxes that the government collects. That 1.2 trillion represents one year of additional debt accumulated by GWB between 2007 and 2008. The 17 trillion represents the total debt that began accumulating well before even Reagan was president. The national debt in 2000 when GWB took office was 5.6 trillion. The national debt in 2008 when he left was 10.1 trillion. Most of the additional 7 trillion since Obama took office was spent on health care for aging baby boomers (our greatest expense as a nation) in addition to the trillions that have been spent in Iraq and Afghanistan. So you need to decide whether you want to kill muslims or have health care and SS when you are too old to work. I've made my choice but unfortunately the morons are in the current majority because their church would prefer that we kill muslims.

The deficit over the last few years was reduced (note that I didn't say debt). That means that the rate at which the debt increases was reduced. Guess how many times the deficit was reduced by GWB. Did you guess zero? Zero would be the correct answer. The deficit was never reduced under GWB even when he had a GOP majority in the house and senate. Do you want to guess how many times the deficit was reduced under Reagan or GHB? Did you guess zero again? Under Clinton it was reduced but he was the only other president after Carter to reduce the deficit until Obama. Historically in my lifetime Democrat presidents have always spent less than Republican presidents.

Thanks for the clarification on the debt I apologize for my Ignorance there was no need to call me Stupid. I think I have it now the good presidents are all democrats and the bad presidents are republicans right? If that is true then we are really in trouble now with the last election. I guess the prosperity we have all enjoyed for the last 6 years is over now?

So if you aren't stupid Froggy then you were maliciously trying to deceive us. So are you stupid or a liar? If you'd rather be a liar then I apologize. You are not stupid froggy. You are a liar.

That's a bit harsh Eric. I really believe that there is a third alternative. And that is people are being manipulated, first by the media, then it spreads through the populous. They can't reconcile how so many people who appear smart and prosperous could be so wrong. The more a lie gets repeated the more believable it is. Then you want to believe these things are true. You have an elevated level of hatred because you really believe that the people you hate are immoral. Somehow facts become foggy and distant. And even the obviousness of the facts becomes obscure because they just can't be true.

Even though LBJ murdered 10's of thousands of Americans for nothing, Obama is still worse. Even though Nixon made a deal with the S. Vietnamese President that extended the Vietnam war at least 5 years, subverting the 1968 Paris Peace talks to win the Presidency and killed 10's of thousands more, Obama is still the worst President. Even though Reagan secretly sold arms to Iran and used the proceeds to fund terrorism in Nicaragua, he did tell Gorbachev to tear down a wall, so Obama is still the worst. Even though Bush presided over a historic rise in deficit spending, killed ~4000 troops and wasted probably $2T dollars basically turning the ME into a hot bed of terrorism, Obama is still the worst. Who gives a crap about reality when the most popular and most profitable "news" network is telling you otherwise. Why should reality and facts trump when all your friends and family are saying otherwise. So what if all those right wing emails are vetted as false. You still rely on the same sources that are proven liars over and over because getting the inside scoop on something nobody else knows feels empowering.

But hasn't Obama murdered 10s of thousands with all the bombing and drone attacks? It looks like all presidents are bad.

Terry, it boils down to one simple question. Would we have gone to war in Iraq if Gore had won vs Bush. I think it's delusional to believe that Bush was not the key man in sending us to Iraq. Simply put... no Bush, no Iraq war.

IMO, no UN precedent, no Iraq war. Blame game can go back 4 or 5 presidents, GWB being the least at fault. If anything, his failure was involving the UN after they showed a decade of no interest in enforcing their own ceasefire agreement. Maybe Clinton was at fault for not pushing the UN to enforce it. Maybe it was GHWB's fault for settling for an agreement instead of disarming them with military force. Maybe it was Carter\Reagan's fault for supplying Sarin and VX to them in the first place and propping up Saddam.

The Iraq war was the culmination of 30 years of presidential bad checks. GWB just happened to be sitting in the seat when the bill came due. Gore may not have gone to war. He may have kicked it down the road like GHWB or Clinton. It would have cost them a fraction of the Iraq war to handle it. It would cost exponentially more for Gore's successor to handle it. Who knows the ramifications of another kick down the road.

Total BW Jason. GWB took us to war without properly considering the fallout. This was best illustrated by his photo op under the now famous "mission accomplished" sign. While taking out Saddam was accomplished the massive fallout from this action has been a total disaster in USA lives/limbs/treasure. So, it was not GWB sitting in a seat when the bill came due. It was GWB making what will likely become the most regrettable decision in the history of the US presidency.

Except we all know how removing Saddam worked out. Why assume we're the bill collector? And what makes you such a great prophet when you are still struggling with the power of hindsight by claiming GWB had to do it? Even the right wing mouth piece George Will called it the biggest blunder in American foreign policy.

"But hasn't Obama murdered 10s of thousands with all the bombing and drone attacks? It looks like all presidents are bad"

Froggy, the numbers I've been quoting are American lives. I didn't really think conservatives actually cared much about the lives of innocent foreigners. Pretty sure that Obama hasn't come close to killing 10s of thousands of Americans. If you want to talk about innocent foreigners then the numbers I quoted about past Presidents is going to jump into the hundreds of thousands. If many Americans had their way about winning the war in Vietnam it would have been millions. Christians think that Jesus would approve of killing innocent foreigners halfway around the world if they feared for their lives. And we all know that no American could hardly wake up in the morning without being afraid that Saddam might get them. Wasn't Jesus always saying... "Love thy enemy after they're dead"?

John you can't make Obama look better by pointing out past presidents faults the fact is Obama is the president now and has been in total control of this country for 6 years now . He is responsible for everything that is going on today. You may think things are good that and may be true for you . If you open yours eyes and look things are not good for about 70% of the country . The lies , Incompetence and absolute incompliance are starting to catch up with Obama that explains the last election. There is no way I will change your mind about politics I think this chart sums it up best you would be blue and I would be red.

Don't let facts stand in your way when you have opinion polls. The only measure of a President is how one compares to the others. Yes things are fine for me. But I still think people need to rely on facts to have any realistic sense of awareness.

BTW, when it comes to the economy I don't think either party gets all the blame. The public is at fault as well for a number of reasons.

Froggy you state that the president is in total control of the country and responsible for everything that is going on. That is the craziest most narrow minded view I think I have ever heard. Have you ever heard of congress, the supreme court, each state that has it own govt, lobbyists, foreign realtion/affairs etc... You are probably one of these people that believe the president is the reason you do or do not have a good job and that the govt or should I say the president is rersponsible for your lot in life be it good or bad.

Its really comical how pretty much none of the republicans "dire predictions" about Obama have come true.

Whit flash water sports, Your statement is completely wrong the congress has as much control if not more than the president.There is supposed to be checks and balances not a complete block of one party and complete submission of the other. Lets not forget who has been in control since 2006 and total control since 2008 . I am not excusing the Republicans they are not much better than the Dems . The currant administration has to take the majority of the responsibility for the way things are today. My main beef with the Reps is their failure to stop or even try to stop the nonsense going on. No I do not believe the government is responsible for anyone's job unless you are working for them. But it is the governments policy's that have over regulated and over taxed business in this country forcing many to either cut back or just leave all together

John I am starting to think you are either blind in your own little world or just full of sh-t . It is Obama and his congress their policies that have put this country where it is today . Was it bad when they took over ? I would say yes, But its worse in almost all categories now. As I stated before Bush was not my favorite president but as you stated when you MEASURE him up to Obama he looks better every day . You think I need to rely on facts well why don't you give me some? How about the top 10 things that Obama's administration has done to improve the lives of the people of this country . If I am so wrong here is your chance to correct me . Remember facts not polls.

Originally Posted by bftskir

Its really comical how pretty much none of the republicans "dire predictions" about Obama have come true.

What predictions are you talking about?

Froggy, it isn't my job to educate the ignorant. How are things worse? Are you talking about the ME?

give it up froggy. You will never sway John from the dark side.
the bottom line for me, and I've said it before, is; Obama wants to redistribute the wealth (beyond historic levels), and he wants a single pay health system (government owed and controlled....with no other options)
He has said just that many many times, and I completely disagree that that's the direction that's best for the country

Thanks goodness for a republican controlled house, for slowing down his agenda. The American people must agree with me.....

for me, it's that simple, so give me a lousy GWB anyday over a BHO

[QUOTE=DenverRider;1897479]Wow Froggy!!! You just tipped your hand and now we all know how utterly stupid you are. 1.2 trillion defecit vs 17 trillion????? Do you know the difference between a national deficit and the national debt?? You obviously don't but if you ask any of the six graders in my son's class they can all tell you. A defecit is the annual difference between government spending and the amount of all types of taxes that the government collects. That 1.2 trillion represents one year of additional debt accumulated by GWB between 2007 and 2008. The 17 trillion represents the total debt that began accumulating well before even Reagan was president. The national debt in 2000 when GWB took office was 5.6 trillion. The national debt in 2008 when he left was 10.1 trillion. QUOTE]

Eric, you propped up your point by stating that Obama reduced the deficit. How did the national debt grow then? Because, the deficits were bigger to start with under Obama. What you missed while proudly proclaiming a deficit reduction is that they are still higher than past administrations. Using your numbers the national debt went up 4.5T under Bush and has went up 7.0T under Obama. That is 2.5 trillion more debt for Obama who has 2 years left on his term, than Bush’s entire 8 year term. I’m assuming it will continue to grow. Maybe I am missing your point.

This chart should help explain it.

This redistribution of wealth argument is such crap Cliff. Wealth has consistently been redistributed from the middle class to the rich for the past 65 years or more. And for the sake of this argument I will clarify ... NOBODY who comments on Wakeworld is rich. Not even the people on here who think they are and not even those who can pay cash for a 120K wakeboat. You might be upper middle class and fortunate but certainly not rich. So your money is what is being redistributed to the rich. You want me to think that it has been redistributed to the poor??? Show me a poor person who got rich or even middle class on government assistance alone. Every dollar a poor person receives eventually ends up in a rich mans pocket because poor people spend all of their money. Most of the time a middle class person will get a piece of that money as it filters up to the rich. The GOP plan seems to be to send that money straight into a rich man's pocket, bypassing the poor person. In the process, the middle class get bypassed as well. The rich people I am talking about don't invest in our country. Why would they? It doesn't make sense to buy expensive stocks that have already peaked and the USA would be a metaphorical expensive stock. So these rich people are like a giant vacuum cleaner that sucks up all of our country's wealth, and on the other end it is blowing out into countries like China. But just keep on pretending that you're rich right up until the moment when it's too late and you realize that you're not. You're just a chump. A rich man's lap dog. I don't want to raise your taxes Cliff. You don't make enough money.

wow Denver

bitter much

you don't know anything about me or those in my circle

and Obama's version of redistribute isn't crap

I'm sorry that you're having a hard time financially

I would bet that there are more than a handful of people on this board that earn $300,000 plus a year

The two main reasons our deficit is so high Darren are the military budget and social security due to the aging boomers who are such a large piece of our population. Obama didn't start the war on terror and he didn't tell soldiers coming home from WWII to go and make too many babies, and then raise them as the dumbest generation that has ever lived. He also didn't tell boomers all to smoke, drink, and get fat so that they can be the most unhealthy generation that has ever lived. Obama didn't then tell them to spend every dollar they put into the SS fund on nuclear bombs, that would never be used, so that there wasn't anything left of it so that gen X and Millennials would have to support their dumb asses and pay their debts. Obama tried to right this ship a bit by raising taxes on the rich (generally boomers). Nobody on wakeworld is rich. Obama didn't do it the way I would have but at least he didn't go to war with Iran the way Romney wanted to. The only thing that would probably fix the situation would be baby boomer kill squads. Since that is obviously not feasible, I guess we can all just sit back and watch the ship sink. One thing is for sure. Taking money from the poor, making abortion illegal, and starting more Muslim wars is NOT the solution. Giving more tax breaks to the rich (nobody on wakeworld is rich) is also not the solution. Whatever the rich don't pay, we have to pay. Do you want to pay more of Donald Trumps's taxes?

300K plus is not even CLOSE to rich. Upper middle class at best but possibly even just regular middle class. Certainly not rich in my book.

Originally Posted by diamonddad

Total BW Jason. GWB took us to war without properly considering the fallout. This was best illustrated by his photo op under the now famous "mission accomplished" sign. While taking out Saddam was accomplished the massive fallout from this action has been a total disaster in USA lives/limbs/treasure. So, it was not GWB sitting in a seat when the bill came due. It was GWB making what will likely become the most regrettable decision in the history of the US presidency.

Going in and forcing compliance wont be regrettable. Turning it into a humanitarian\human rights\spread democracy PR campaign might.

Why assume we're the bill collector?

Whats the purpose of making a ceasefire agreement? If party A is in the process of wiping party B off the map in order to disarm them, and party B doesn't want to be wiped off the map, and in turn strikes an agreeable term of disarming themselves to cease the wiping, is it not implied that if the agreement is broken by party B that the process would then be completed by party A? If not party A, then who? If party A doesn't care if they comply or not, why make the agreement in the first place? Certainly I'm not the only one who can follow this logic.

Im no GWB fan, but come on, he did it by the rules. He asked Saddam to comply with their agreement to disarm. Saddam refused. He appealed to the UN. The UN agreed. He got congressional approval, and he force compliance. I cant fault him for that. Now all that PR fluff and gifting of democracy was a joke.

NOBODY who comments on Wakeworld is rich.

This I know for a fact is wrong. Not much of a credibility booster.

So tell me Jason. Which member of Wakeworld is on the Forbes list. If you can't tell me at least one then that thing you know for a fact is wrong. Credibility gone. Does anyone really think for one second that when a liberal talks about the rich destroying America they mean some chump who thinks he's rich making 400thousand a year? Once again, if you make 400K per year, do you want Warren Buffet to pay less tax so that you can pay more? There are people collecting billions per year. How can you call yourself rich when the actual rich people are collecting 2 million 500 thousand times more than you? To call yourself rich in that scenario is nothing more than delusional.

Jason, ever heard of a cost vs benefit analysis? You don't stand on principal no matter the cost. Otherwise you'd probably end up destroying the entire planet with nukes. There was no push by either Congress or the UN to invade Iraq at that time. It was entirely a sales job by the executive office. No matter how much you agree that invading Iraq was necessary, there was no pressure whatsoever on Bush to spearhead the effort.

Cliff, sorry you feel Facts = Dark Side. Although that would explain how Conservatives think. Yes... Obama does believe that wealth should be distributed differently. That's not in question. But according to conservative logic of blaming everything on the current President, Obama is responsible for significant concentration of wealth to the wealthy (beyond historic proportions). What a weird twist that is. And yes Obama probably does think that universal healthcare is where we should be. But what is this... "no other options" thing you speak of? From what I understand all modern countries with universal healthcare have options for people to self pay for HC outside the "system".

Originally Posted by Cabledog

How did the national debt grow then?

Debt always grows if the deficit is above zero.

Originally Posted by Cabledog

Because, the deficits were bigger to start with under Obama. What you missed while proudly proclaiming a deficit reduction is that they are still higher than past administrations.

Wrong. Deficits were bigger to start with under Bush.

Originally Posted by Cabledog

Using your numbers the national debt went up 4.5T under Bush and has went up 7.0T under Obama. That is 2.5 trillion more debt for Obama who has 2 years left on his term, than Bush’s entire 8 year term. I’m assuming it will continue to grow. Maybe I am missing your point.

Car analogy.... As long as you are moving you are further down the road. Even if you are slowing down.

First of all, the largest *annual* deficit was under Bush. And that was because Bush recognized that the country was in trouble and worked with Congress to significantly increase deficit spending. No one in their right mind would expect an incoming President to slash deficit spending when the country was in trouble. If you argued that the *total* deficit spending was larger under Obama then you would be correct. But that is true for every subsequent President. Even Clinton who balanced the budget and left with a surplus,.

The economy was able to absorb bad economic policy until it snapped and either the piper had to be paid or it was bad times for everyone. Obama was left to fix that and nobody had any other solution than to continue the high rate of deficit spending and slowly ween the country off. It is strictly partisan political strategy to blame Obama for not figuring out how to "fix" the economy and simultaneously slash the deficit to balance the budget.

Fact.... no Republican President starting with Reagan has ever reduced deficit spending between entering and leaving office. The most recent two Democratic Presidents have both decreased deficit spending,

This chart should help explain it.

It explains it, but doesn't guarantee comprehension. Nor does it mean that you will understand very much more than the points on a yearly graph.

Dire predictions...Obamas gonna take our guns! I still have all my guns and bought a few more but at higher prices since demand skyrocketed due to dire predictions....

And finally the ammo cabinet at walmart is full again but all ammo is more expensive.


Obama is a muslim...lol sure he is. He's not a citizen...lol sure he's not.


There's lots more

"The rich people I am talking about don't invest in our country. Why would they? It doesn't make sense to buy expensive stocks that have already peaked and the USA would be a metaphorical expensive stock. So these rich people are like a giant vacuum cleaner that sucks up all of our country's wealth, and on the other end it is blowing out into countries like China. "

This is simply not true.

Originally Posted by DenverRider

So tell me Jason. Which member of Wakeworld is on the Forbes list. If you can't tell me at least one then that thing you know for a fact is wrong. Credibility gone.

Wait, so if I don't divulge to you the name and financials of another member (its not me) then I have no credibility?

Originally Posted by fly135

Jason, ever heard of a cost vs benefit analysis?

Sure. You ever heard of mitigating risk? Just like an cost center in business that mitigates risk, you cant fully understand its value because you cannot quantify the value of losses it prevented.

Originally Posted by jason_ssr

Sure. You ever heard of mitigating risk? Just like an cost center in business that mitigates risk, you cant fully understand its value because you cannot quantify the value of losses it prevented.

If you knew that cost vs risk analysis was what you do before deciding to "mitigate risk" you wouldn't have asked that question. You appear to believe that there is no cost too high because you cannot quantify a loss that hasn't happened.

All of that sarcasm above was meant to point out we recklessly "mitigated risk". I guess you didn't recognize that it was sarcasm because you were actually worried that Saddam was coming to get you. I think most people would agree that the region is more risky now than when Saddam was in power. And the cost to put that in motion was significant.

As a Christian you should also be willing to accept risk to prevent innocent people dying as a consequence of your own actions. I don't really see that moral imperative in the heart of your typical Christian. We are quick to kill others not so much because we are afraid as we are arrogant. That came through when you justified the invasion because we told Saddam what to do and we had to invade because he defied us.

Sadaam couldn't show us what he didn't have...its been proven there were no wmd's

Originally Posted by bftskir

Sadaam couldn't show us what he didn't have...its been proven there were no wmd's

according to a recent report published in the journal Middle East Review of International Affairs, or MERIA, militants of the Islamic State group used chemical weapons, including mustard gas, against Kurdish fighters in the Syrian border town of Kobani during their first attempt to capture the town in July.

The report, which is based on testimonies from eyewitnesses on the ground, said that the chemical weapons had been transferred to the Syrian province of Raqqa from a Saddam Hussein-era chemical weapons facility located near the Iraqi capital of Baghdad. The report has prompted fears that ISIS could have access to vast stockpiles of chemical weapons, including sarin, mustard gas, and VX, a nerve agent.

In June, reports emerged that the Islamic State group had captured Muthanna, a chemical weapons facility, near the city of Samarra, located 45 miles northwest of Baghdad. At the time, the United States government said it did not believe that the complex, which was considered to be one of Saddam Hussein’s most important chemical weapons facility, built during Iraq’s war with Iran in the early 1980s, contained “Chemical Weapons materials of military value.”

However, according to a report published by The New York Times on Tuesday, the U.S. military not only recovered massive stockpiles of chemical weapons in Iraq, including in the Muthanna complex now controlled by ISIS, it actively attempted to keep the discovery of the munitions a secret. The report, which is based on interviews with several former U.S. army personnel, alleged that between 2004 and 2010, soldiers found thousands of rusty and corroded chemical munitions.

The Times report noted that all of the chemical munitions discovered in Iraq were made before the 1991 Gulf war, and had been “designed in the United States, manufactured in Europe and filled in chemical agent production lines built in Iraq by Western companies.”

The U.S. campaign in Iraq in 2003 was launched on the assumption that Saddam Hussein was hiding and actively enriching a massive stockpile of chemical weapons. However, the Times report alleged, because no such “active weapons of mass destruction program” were reportedly discovered in Iraq, the U.S. government suppressed knowledge of the discovery to avoid further embarrassment.

According to the Times report, though U.N. inspectors reported finding no evidence of weapons of mass destruction as claimed by the U.S. administration at the time, American troops during their occupation of Iraq found stockpiles of chemical weapons, which were identified as having been manufactured before 1991. The aged and rusty shells and rockets, though unfit to be used as originally intended, reportedly still contained deadly chemical agents.

The rise of the Islamic State group in Iraq has rekindled concerns that the militants could now be in control of a huge chunk of the nearly 5,000 chemical warheads discovered in Iraq, and that they could use these weapons, banned under the Chemical Weapons Convention of 1997, in their onslaught in Syria and Iraq.

“The probable possession by the Islamic State of a chemical weapons capability is for obvious reasons a matter of the gravest concern, and should be the urgent subject of further attention and investigation,” the MERIA report said, adding that evidence strongly suggested that at least a part of Saddam Hussein’s chemical weapons arsenal is now being used in combat by the Islamic State group.

So we spent $2T and 4,000 American lives to transfer WMD from Saddam to ISIS, and turn the ME into a hotbed of terrorism.

Originally Posted by bftskir

Sadaam couldn't show us what he didn't have...its been proven there were no wmd's

LMAO! WOW, there are people who actually believe this. Lets see, we gave Saddam WMDs to fight Iran. He used them on the Kurds. The US went to war in full chem gear. The ceasefire agreement from the first gulf war was on the condition that the UN could destroy the WMD. The UN has documented cataloging and destroying a great deal of them, but were kicked out before completion. Yet you say it is proven there were none.

So we spent $2T and 4,000 American lives to transfer WMD from Saddam to ISIS, and turn the ME into a hotbed of terrorism.

Yes, the cost was high for GWB to do it, but wouldn't have cost a fraction of that for GHWB to do it. You never answered the question, why agree to a ceasefire agreement on the condition Saddam let the UN destroy all the WMD if the WMDs were of no concern?

Originally Posted by jason_ssr

LMAO! WOW...Yet you say it is proven there were none.

Your argument would be a bit more convincing if you just referenced the report documenting the WMDs discovered and destroyed after the invasion.

Originally Posted by jason_ssr

You never answered the question, why agree to a ceasefire agreement on the condition Saddam let the UN destroy all the WMD if the WMDs were of no concern?

We aren't talking about the negative effects of an erroneous ceasefire. We are talking about the stupidity of invading Iraq. I can no more convince you of that, which is now self-evident, than science can convince a religious fundamentalist that the Earth isn't 6,000 years old.

Don't you think isis would be happily using wmds right now if they had their hands on any? It thought that maybe about 8 people might have been exposed to mustard gas...not confirmed and unlikely that that's it.

IRAQ should teach us to not try to fix the middle east. We should try our best to reduce their power and reduce their influence. Let them kill each other. Buy their oil at the lowest price possible. Support tyrants like Saddam so they keep the animals under control.

We did support him when he was killing iranians

Its going to take a lot of death to fix the middle east

The curse is that that culture sits on oil. If they were not on oil they would be powerless and have no way to support their population of idiots.

So, we need to do our best to keep oil prices down and encourage them to kill each other which an easy task within that wasteland culture.

Just like Texas.

Originally Posted by fly135

Your argument would be a bit more convincing if you just referenced the report documenting the WMDs discovered and destroyed after the invasion.

.

They were discovered. They were used in IEDs. They were deteriorated and only viable for small area attacks. Iraqi military personnel has since said the CP was correct and that the viable Sarin stock was moved to Syria during the UN deliberations. Now, I know what your thinking, "but Jason, Syria doesnt have WMD".

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ghouta_chemical_attack

It didnt happen to be Sarin did it?

Again Im no GWB fan, but Im also not consumed with the idea that going to Iraq was a bad decision given the facts he had to work with. It was going to be a gamble either way. Had he gone in immediately without giving them 18mo to move it all, the cost you hate would have been the same, but at least you would have to find another rally cry other than "there are no WMD and never were". Had the stockpiles not been moved to Syria, would you still be opposed to spending $2T on Iraq? I think you would, so the stockpiles are moot.

Jason, The fact that WMDs were not found and destroyed, and at this point no one cares proves that WMDs were not sufficient reason to invade Iraq and pay the price we paid. Remember I said that supported Bush at that time? The difference is that I am intelligent enough to recognize when I'm wrong and not indulge in foolish denial of the truth. I never believed that Bush's motive was WMDs from the start even though I was in support of the war. I searched Usenet and found a post I made in Apr 1993 regarding this. My reasoning and Bush's was flawed. Mine because I was naive of the culture of Iraq. But there is no explanation for such incompetence at the executive level and the position of the most powerful person on the planet who has billions of dollars of advisors, military, and CIA intelligence at his disposal.

I believe what I wrote then was true regarding WMDs being a ruse. But it was fatally flawed plan because the culture consisted of an oppressed majority that would be itching to extract retribution on their oppressors. Bush had to know that we would be there forever to suppress this. And that was probably exactly what he wanted. But he never anticipated that we could never gain enough control to turn the situation to our advantage. Instead it just turned into a protracted costly endeavour with few to no benefits. Except enriching the heck out of Cheney's cronies. Who may have been the true force behind all of this anyway.

Whether or not Suddam has WMD depends a lot on your definition. It's hard to
believe that he doesn't have chemical weapons considering that he has a
history of using them. But the reality is that this war isn't about WMD. I
don't believe that it ever has been and I don't believe that anyone in a UN
leadership position believes it either.

This war is about terrorism. And it was precipitated by events of 9/11. The
whole WMD thing is total propagada. The US wants a better handle on the ME.
Taking out Al-Queda and the Taliban simply did not make a big enough
statement to the Muslim population who would fuel future terrorists acts.
Hopefully taking out Iraq will not only imprint in their minds, but will
give us another allied foothold in the region to ferret out information and
intervene further terrorist acts.

We couldn't go to the UN to pitch that as a reason. That's a no brainer. So
we hitched a ride on Suddam's arrogant defiance on the UN resolutions. You
can damn sure bet that Germany, France, and everyone else knew this too. But
they didn't call us on it because if they admitted what they knew was our
real motivation then it would simply validate by recognition our real
motives. I.E. you can't be the first to acknowlege the existance of a
rationale if the rationale itself doesn't have some validity.

This war is all about the US protecting itself. That's why we did not
require UN approval for this action. We don't always invade countries to
rescue the oppressed population, but sometimes we do. However, I do think
that Suddam's oppresion and blatent disregard for human rights was his
proverbial "nail in the coffin". IMO it was a critical factor and we could
not have invaded Iraq in it's absence. Saddam set himself up as the perfect
target for the US to move into the ME and create a new allied govt. in the
middle of the terrorist heartland.

Being against the war doesn't mean anyone is pro Saddam. There are a number
of reasons to be against this war. But IMO none of them represent any
superior moral thinking. Most of the reasons boil down to preservation of
self interests.

'' But there is no explanation for such incompetence at the executive level and the position of the most powerful person on the planet who has billions of dollars of advisors, military, and CIA intelligence at his disposal.''

You said a mouth full there have you looked at the person in that position now? I think that describes Mr Obama to the T. Unless you care to prove me wrong by posting 10 things that Obama has done that has been beneficial for the American people. What do you think of his latest decree he stated 26 times in the past that this is unconstitutional and not within the power of the presidency.