Forum adverts like this one are shown to any user who is not logged in. Join us by filling out a tiny 3 field form and you will get your own, free, dakka user account which gives a good range of benefits to you: No adverts like this in the forums anymore. Times and dates in your local timezone. Full tracking of what you have read so you can skip to your first unread post, easily see what has changed since you last logged in, and easily see what is new at a glance. Email notifications for threads you want to watch closely. Being a part of the oldest wargaming community on the net. If you are already a member then feel free to login now.

dogma wrote:

Orlanth wrote:
I am no fan of Obama and am more than happy to see blame laid at his door. Yet discredit where discredit is due and I really cannot blame him or his government for why the situation Iraq has apparently gone South during his presidential term. Iraq has not existed as a stable nation since the 'Coalition of the Willing' booted Saddam out of office. It just took a while for the quagmire to churn up to full depth, and probably hasn't yet got there.

I'm not sure why the absence of a SOFA equates to an unstable Iraq. Iraq could be a staunch Iranian ally and still be perfectly stable.

Sorry Dogma, I dont follow what you are saying here.

I was taking Iraqi 'stability' from a Western point of view rather than a literal one; as in 'stable' and 'pro-Iranian' are mutually exclusive, even though Islamic theocracies can have a level of consistency.

Orlanth wrote:
Sorry Dogma, I dont follow what you are saying here.

I was taking Iraqi 'stability' from a Western point of view rather than a literal one; as in 'stable' and 'pro-Iranian' are mutually exclusive, even though Islamic theocracies can have a level of consistency.

I was just pointing out the distinction that you've illustrated.

Though, even if we equate "stable" with "pro-Western" I'm still not sure why the absence of a SOFA precludes "stability".

Would you not agree that GW dropped the ball by going into Iraq, instead of finishing the Afghanistan war first?
How/why they ever thought they could do 2 wars, let alone one, is beyond me. Just imagine if we'd
devoted all the resources that were spent in Iraq in Afghanistan? Probably wouldn't be at an END, but that
situation couldn't be any worse.

The military was geared to fight on two fronts with current forces at that time. The 10 division concept was implemented during the Clinton draw down. Over the course of the war we went from battleline era soviet combat to dealing with insurgents. Quite a bit of resources went into personnel protection IE body armor, MRAP family of vehicles, drones, uparmor vehicles, NVG's, and weapons to name the mainline. I'm going to agree with you about the damn contractors

Now lets talk dollars. How deep did W dig us in just the Iraq war? apparently starting and continuing wars he had no way
to pay for is a-Okay with the Right. but, we really can't afford National health care.

Again blaming it on GW that he has a personnel agenda in starting both conflict. He showed congress all the intell and evidence he had. If he so lied about it then why was there no attempt to impeach? Also Democrats (majority) voted to go to war to. Both parties agreed to both conflict. Both sides were wrong in thinking it'll be quick. National Health Care is a whole new thread

And look how the Vets were being treated when they came home.
"No PTSD for you, you're an Alcoholic!" Heaven forbid that the PTSD caused the drinking in the first fething place....
It's always amazed me how the Heros that wear the flag are held up and saluted so proudly by
the Right, until it comes time to take care of them. Just ask Billbo Oreally how many Homeless Vets there are. according to
him, it's a myth. Not true at all. He's also the genius that said the US committed War crimes in WW2 at Malmedy. We were
actually the victims. you have to admire how facts don't get in the way for him!

How are we treated when we come home? Everytime I go through Atlanta airport for R&R people actually applaud us as we leave our terminal. There's no negative vietnam era protesting against vet that I know of. As for PTSD well I've been diagnose with it. After 3 tours I agree with it. I don't drink. I will admit sharing a glass of wine with the Lady but thats it. Now with taking care of the vets. Both parties are committed to that endeavor. With a busted shoulder, both feet busted, PTSD, and TBI. I will say my treatment was first rate and we were the priority in the Wounded Warrior/Warrior Transition Units. Homeless vets cover how far back? Not disagreeing with you but how far back? I do know 49% of Wounded Warriors are unemployed when they process out from the military. Obama got that ball rolling to hire us as a priority with good benefits employers. As for Bill O'reilly....link please.

Hmmm if I remember correctly GW was a fighter pilot in the Air National Gaurd

Apparently you missed the part where his daddy Bush got him the gig in the National Guard so he could avoid going to Vietnam, then G.W. Bush just stopped showing up even for that gig and he was never charged with being AWOL or anything else because of his daddy's influence. Honestly, how did anyone miss that scandal? It's a well known and well covered fact. Another case of his supporters turning a blind-eye to his behavior.

Apparently you missed the part where his daddy Bush got him the gig in the National Guard so he could avoid going to Vietnam, then G.W. Bush just stopped showing up even for that gig and he was never charged with being AWOL or anything else because of his daddy's influence. Honestly, how did anyone miss that scandal? It's a well known and well covered fact. Another case of his supporters turning a blind-eye to his behavior.

Well Reserve and Guard duty is one weekend a month 2 weeks a year. I mention either on this post or the Iran one where you can beat the draft by joining either the National Guard or the Reserves. As for his unit not deploying to Vietnam is that his unit did not recieve deploymeny orders as a whole or as an individual. As for him missing duty its either RST (Reschedule Training) or he banked up IE he did 30 days straight of duty to furfill his obligation for the year. If I remember correctly the military debate was shutdown about his military service once he showed his DD214. Honorable Discharge. Reason why no one can counter his service obligation was a vast majority of the 201 files were lost in a fire (probaly GW fault to) in Indianapolis, Ind. (think I'm wrong on location cause I think they moved) Proof please of GW Senior influence.

Edit
As for him not deploying as a fighter pilot there were enough active duty pilots to commit to the war in vietnam and other roles throughout the world.

Again blaming it on GW that he has a personnel agenda in starting both conflict. He showed congress all the intell and evidence he had. If he so lied about it then why was there no attempt to impeach? Also Democrats (majority) voted to go to war to. Both parties agreed to both conflict. Both sides were wrong in thinking it'll be quick. National Health Care is a whole new thread

...

Bush used Blair to do a lot of the dirty work.

The "dodgy dossier", the "yellowcake" report and the WMD = 45 minutes from British troops in Cyprus were all fabrications.

There was no reliable evidence of WMDs for the simple reason that there weren't any WMDs. The arguments presented by B&B were strongly contested at the time by the UN weapons inspectorate and independent WMD experts.

There's no doubt that B&B railroaded both nations into the war by scaring the representative assemblies into voting for it.

As to why neither of them have been impeached, I have no idea what the legalities of the situation may be. Cabinet collective responsibility or something, perhaps.

Kilkrazy wrote:

As to why neither of them have been impeached, I have no idea what the legalities of the situation may be. Cabinet collective responsibility or something, perhaps.

A US president has certain immunities under US law. A British Prime Minister has no such immunitioes under Uk law, but does under EU law if holding an EU office. This has been suggested as to how and why Blair has held a succession of EU appointments, but whether this is true or not I cannot say.

Jihadin wrote:

Apparently you missed the part where his daddy Bush got him the gig in the National Guard so he could avoid going to Vietnam, then G.W. Bush just stopped showing up even for that gig and he was never charged with being AWOL or anything else because of his daddy's influence. Honestly, how did anyone miss that scandal? It's a well known and well covered fact. Another case of his supporters turning a blind-eye to his behavior.

Well Reserve and Guard duty is one weekend a month 2 weeks a year. I mention either on this post or the Iran one where you can beat the draft by joining either the National Guard or the Reserves. As for his unit not deploying to Vietnam is that his unit did not recieve deploymeny orders as a whole or as an individual. As for him missing duty its either RST (Reschedule Training) or he banked up IE he did 30 days straight of duty to furfill his obligation for the year. If I remember correctly the military debate was shutdown about his military service once he showed his DD214. Honorable Discharge. Reason why no one can counter his service obligation was a vast majority of the 201 files were lost in a fire (probaly GW fault to) in Indianapolis, Ind. (think I'm wrong on location cause I think they moved) Proof please of GW Senior influence.

Edit
As for him not deploying as a fighter pilot there were enough active duty pilots to commit to the war in vietnam and other roles throughout the world.

Guard and reserve units have been fighting in Iraq and Afghanistan for a decade, just not air national guard (or cosat guard, but they actually have a role in american security). I'm sure he was an awful air guardsman that did just enough to be classified as one. When you're father is a senator and your countrymen are dying in a war that you advocate, joining a branch of the military that can't possibly see service and then doing a piss poor job there is little different then simply dodging in my view. At least the dudes that went to Canada had the balls to actually object.

Orlanth wrote:

Kilkrazy wrote:

As to why neither of them have been impeached, I have no idea what the legalities of the situation may be. Cabinet collective responsibility or something, perhaps.

A US president has certain immunities under US law. A British Prime Minister has no such immunitioes under Uk law, but does under EU law if holding an EU office. This has been suggested as to how and why Blair has held a succession of EU appointments, but whether this is true or not I cannot say.

Blair asked both Parliament and the Sovereign's permission to go to war. It would be very difficult to put a case specifically against Blair since all he did was read an intelligence dossier.

Stupid laws!

Jihadin wrote: As for Bill O'reilly....link please.

Sorry, been busy!
On the Homeless Vets:
http://www.huffingtonpost.com/paul-rieckhoff/oreilly-downplays-number-_b_81900.html

On Malmedy:
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ZKG93i5ISmc
It's 7+ min long, but an interesting listen. I learned about Malmedy due to Oreally walking all over it.

What a Dumba$$....making a mistake on TV in front of 2 Four Star generals on Malmedy. Hhhmmm...guess my factor of him hit a low

Actually Jihadin I'm 99.9% sure that at least one rotation of F-16s was New York Air Guard while I was in Iraq. After the coolness of jetfighters wears off (6 days or less) you stop checking tails. But if they were guardtards they pulled some sick wheelies. I'm sure back in the 60-70s Guard didn't deploy or did sparingly but with my own eyes I've eve saw a few coast guard ratings and an officer. No idea what if anything they did in theatre, but they were there. Just a FYI, if you care.

Had Navy at Bagram and Kandahar. Mostly their SeaBee units and Security Units. Actually perfer dealing with the SeaBees and try ever underhanded way to get them to work for us instead being forced to use contractors on Kandahar. Let's say Equipment Training was used quite a lot to get things built when I stood up AMC unit there. I hate contractors

I liken it to going "in network" with health insurance. Why contract what you can get done inside the system?

BrassScorpion wrote:

Democrats lose another won war.

More reasons this is a false premise, really incredibly false that somehow Democrats lose wars and Republicans win wars.

First, the biggest most horrible, destructive conflict in history was WWII. Both FDR and Harry Truman were Democrats and I'm fairly certain the USA can call that one a win. A win under Democrats.

So when is the highly dubious title of this thread going to be changed to something more appropriate? I'm sure never, facts don't matter to some, only failed ideologies.

Perhaps you should reread the title.
Does it say Democrats lose every war?

FDR was a disaster. I'm glad we won the war he lied and got us into. I heartily dislike communists, but it could be said the Soviets won WWII, in Europe.

Regards,

Wait, are you seriously going to claim FDR is morally bankrupt because he got us in to World War II? This certainly puts your fascist/nazi comments in a new light...

FDR didn't get us into World War II. Japan did that on its own.

And I would wonder at the position of anyone who should that the position we shouldn't have gotten involved in WWII. Imperial Japan and Nazi Germany are about as close to a true 'Axis of Evil' as anyone can get in history. EDIT: And arguably Soviet Russia was worse than both.

mattyrm wrote: Bicc, your one of the most partisan blokes ever, how can you say that anyone who thinks Obama is better at his job than Dubya is merely a partisan hack themselves!?

Because under any metric used to evaluate Obama's success, Bush comes out better. Under any metric used to measure Bush's failure, Obama comes out worse.

The only advantage Obama has is that he's "not Bush."

mattyrm wrote: I wouldnt trust George Bush with a pair of fething scissors!

I'm not sure why. His reputation for being an idiot is completely based on a myth provided by the media. People think he's dumb because they have preconceptions that he's dumb. It doesn't matter that he is a graduate of both Harvard and Yale, two of the (supposedly) best universities in the US. Or that he was a successful governor and businessman. He's dumb because people think he's dumb.

Obama, on the other hand, can't speak well without a teleprompter, he didn't do very well as a private lawyer, worked as a "community organizer" and won his Senate seat through some of the most unethical campaign shenanigans I think I'd ever seen. Had he not run for president, most people would have labeled him extremely unsuccessful.

ShumaGorath wrote:Oh gak, it looks like they've managed to score a five to one kill death ratio in this conflict. Those poor jewish bastards. But why! Why would the Palestinians be so angry at them? The Israelis just want to live in peace with their neighbors, they would never do anything to actually hurt them.

Just out of curiosity, how many innocent casualties are worth 1 military casualty? Or, since you care so much about "those poor jewish bastards" (which indicates to me that you don't care about Israeli's so much as you care about Jews), how many Jews should be killed for each Palistinian?

ShumaGorath wrote:Oh. Well that seems odd. I thought the israelis were defending here.

They are. Your map displays a tremendous ignorance about the history of the Israel-Palestine conflict. Starting right from the beginning.

Melissia wrote:Wait, are you seriously going to claim FDR is morally bankrupt because he got us in to World War II? This certainly puts your fascist/nazi comments in a new light...

Well actually...

Japan invades China. Does mucho nasty things.
US puts oil and commercial embargo on Japan (sound familiar)
Germany invades Europa. Does mucho nasty things but in cool uniforms.
US begins lend lease and protects its hemisphere against "pirates" quasi war against German navy begins.
Japan gets uppity with the whole Tora Tora Tora thing.
Germany, an ally declares war (later known as the 1941 Oops II the year we ed up by A Hitler)
Slavic peasants, Georgia farmboys, and guys saying "right!" a lot whoop up on Fritz.
US explains to Japan, never bring a navy to a nuke war.
The end. or is it?

biccat wrote:
I'm not sure why. His reputation for being an idiot is completely based on a myth provided by the media. People think he's dumb because they have preconceptions that he's dumb. It doesn't matter that he is a graduate of both Harvard and Yale, two of the (supposedly) best universities in the US. Or that he was a successful governor and businessman. He's dumb because people think he's dumb.

That's not quite true.

A huge deal of why people think about him is based upon his generally awful public speaking record which includes the innumerable gaffes he made. This is, of course, inevitable for any public figure, goes with the territory one supposes, but some of his were well.. spectacular isn't quiet the word but buttock clenchingly bad at the least.

Guess he looked bad compared to his slick predecessor too perhaps ?

He was in no way a successful business man by any realistic standards, the companies he was involved in generally collapsing and being run into the ground.

Although I'll grant you it takes a certain special talent to lose money in the oil industry. In Texas. When your dad is the President.

Can't deny his graduations. Somewhat odd though, to say the least, that the entry grades he was accepted on are so significantly lower than for anyone else. But, in fairness, that's hardly unusual for people in his situation.

biccat wrote:

mattyrm wrote: I wouldnt trust George Bush with a pair of fething scissors!

I'm not sure why. His reputation for being an idiot is completely based on a myth provided by the media. People think he's dumb because they have preconceptions that he's dumb. It doesn't matter that he is a graduate of both Harvard and Yale, two of the (supposedly) best universities in the US. Or that he was a successful governor and businessman. He's dumb because people think he's dumb.

Obama, on the other hand, can't speak well without a teleprompter, he didn't do very well as a private lawyer, worked as a "community organizer" and won his Senate seat through some of the most unethical campaign shenanigans I think I'd ever seen. Had he not run for president, most people would have labeled him extremely unsuccessful

Mate, as you know, I'm no fan of Obama, I agree he may be dishonest and certainly ran an unethical campaign, but the Bush stuff..

He was a C student at Uni, he wasn't a particularly successful governor (he invented Jesus day?!) and according to 60 minutes he wasn't an even remotely successful businessman because his Dad had to bail him out numerous times thanks to a catalogue of feth ups!

I don't even particularly dislike Bush mate, I had a merry time on my four tours in Iraq and Afghanistan and I'm proud to say that Im a veteran of both, I didnt want to spend all my time in Sierra Leone and Northern Ireland, so I owe the bloke a thanks! I would even go so far as to say that seeing as I am somewhat bigoted when it comes to Islam I am pleased with his aggressive stance during the war on terror and have no issue's at all with him bombing anyone, Gitmo, or invading anyone! Plus, he was nice to the Queen, distantly related to our PM and seemed to be a nice enough bloke on a personal level, where as Obama seems distant and smug and is hard to like.

But you can tell when a bloke is switched on bic, merely by the way that they speak and carry themselves, and Bush strikes me as being somewhat dim.

YMMV of course, but American Republicans (of which you are clearly one) are going to be a tad biased right?

Not me, Im a dirty foreigner with right wing tendencies.

Wait you wanted to go to Afghanistan over Northern Ireland?

Beer and moderate climate and people wanting you to die over

Dry and crappy climate and no booze for you and people wanting you to die.

I'm noticing the only thing in common is people wanting you to die. Mattrym, uniting disparate people in a common cause...

Melissia wrote:Wait, are you seriously going to claim FDR is morally bankrupt because he got us in to World War II? This certainly puts your fascist/nazi comments in a new light...

His comments aren't fascist or nazi...even in the slightest, he is just misinformed

The British can always find an alcoholic drink. Anyway in the world.

As superpowers go it ain't superspeed or telepathy but we stagger err.. struggle on.

It's quite likely he'd meet more Irish people outside of Ireland anyway. As far as I can tell almost the entire population of Ireland and Australia is based in England, usually working in bars, seemingly employed to tell us endlessly about how great it is back home, yet only ever going back there under the most extreme circumstances.

I think it's something to do with the laws of thermodynamics.

Or something.

Now thats a classic lol

reds8n wrote:Can't deny his graduations. Somewhat odd though, to say the least, that the entry grades he was accepted on are so significantly lower than for anyone else. But, in fairness, that's hardly unusual for people in his situation.

Er...what?

I mean, I understand that people love to make gak up about President Bush, but to flat-out lie? I suppose it's not unexpected.

Also, could you please provide a link to the grades Mr. Bush's successor received before entering Harvard?

Frazzled wrote:Wait you wanted to go to Afghanistan over Northern Ireland?

Beer and moderate climate and people wanting you to die over

Dry and crappy climate and no booze for you and people wanting you to die.

I'm noticing the only thing in common is people wanting you to die. Mattrym, uniting disparate people in a common cause...

Mate, in South Armagh (known as Bandit country) 100% of the locals want you to die. The army lads might have went up north where its a mixture, but there its pure hate from everyone you speak to. Its also far worse because they are identical to British people and they speak the same language. When your kneeling down outside a post office and a young girl the same age comes out and calls you a long list of unrepeatable obscenities, its far worse than the brown, toothless, grinning idiots who barely speak English. I cant really explain why, but it is.

You live in a tin shed, your banned from drinking for 6 months, and hardly anything happens. As a young commando you crave jumping out of helicopters, launching missiles at people, firing your underslung grenade launcher at fethers that deserve it, shooting your Minimi from the hip!

Not sitting in a tin shed on top of a wind swept hill and being swore at for 6 months whilst being filmed the whole time by savvy Terrorist supporting chavs who you aren't allowed to shoot, stab, blow up or even stick a left hook into for fear of annoying people.

I think I even prefered the arse end of Africa to NI. You really need to experience the hate for yourself.

I mean, I understand that people love to make gak up about President Bush, but to flat-out lie?

cf :

successful businessman

Frazzled wrote:Dry and crappy climate and no booze for you

erm...you know I never knew they made vodka in a can until I went to the sandbox. I won't condone disobeying the general orders but for some reason that one sticks...Vodka...in a can.

reds8n wrote:

I mean, I understand that people love to make gak up about President Bush, but to flat-out lie?

cf :

successful businessman

I'm sure you believe you're making some incredibly clever point, but the rest of us aren't so sure.

Are you saying that you're not lying? Or are you admitting that you're lying?