Iraq

[Big Sarge]

Originally Posted by BigV

That last one, the statement by President Clinton? Yep, that was a lie.

But I flatly refuse to accept that it was pertinent question, meaningful to *me* in any way whatsoever. And I have a LOT of company. The question itself was illegitimate. A better answer would have been "That's private." "That's none of your business." "No comment." Silence. "The rain in Spain falls mainly on the plain." "Yes." "Next question." Any of those, all of those are better "answers" to the "question".

Such a massively ridiculous point of bullshit, then and now.

So say ye, but what if a Republican president had lied under oath and been caught?? More important is Obama has totally broken his word about the deployment of US forces to Iraq. OIF was over and Iraq would not grant a status of forces agreement. Why are we back?? What did ISIS do to the US to warrant an intervention in a religious war in a current that a few years ago basically ran us out of their country??

Yes BigV, I am aware how Social Security works. It was simply another famous broken promise made by a Democrat president. didn't understand the program

[BigV]

Originally Posted by Big Sarge

So say ye, but what if a Republican president had lied under oath and been caught??
--snip--
It was simply another famous broken promise made by a Democrat president.

Let's get something out of the way first, ok?

Republican President
Democratic President
American President.

Not Republic President
Not Democrat President
Not America President.

You are a Republican
I am a Democrat
We are Americans.

Misuse of these terms makes the abuser look uninformed or confrontational.

[BigV]

Originally Posted by Big Sarge

So say ye, but what if a Republican president had lied under oath and been caught??
--snip

Perhaps I was unclear in my previous post. The question was invalid and any party affiliation is irrelevant. The same question, same circumstances asked of a Republican president would be a matter of equally monumental insignificance.

Lying under oath is serious. But only for serious matters, only for significant matters. You tell me. Why was this question significant such that the answer yes or no mattered?

[BigV]

Originally Posted by Big Sarge

snip--

Yes BigV, I am aware how Social Security works. It was simply another famous broken promise made by a Democrat president. didn't understand the program

Big Sarge, now I'm the one who doesn't understand.

You said:

Originally Posted by Big Sarge

snip--

Social Security will be in a trust fund and cannot be spent by the government: FDR

--snip

What's your point?

At first, I thought you said that because you believe that the Social Security trust fund *is* being spent by our government. Is that the case? If that's your point, tell me how you think it's being spent by our government. I'm not sure what you're talking about. You sound like you're complaining that "FDR broke a promise". While you're at it, and I ask this from ignorance, where did FDR say what you say he said? I can't find any reference to it.

Thanks.

[BigV]

Originally Posted by Big Sarge

snip--

More important is Obama has totally broken his word about the deployment of US forces to Iraq. OIF was over and Iraq would not grant a status of forces agreement. Why are we back?? What did ISIS do to the US to warrant an intervention in a religious war in a current that a few years ago basically ran us out of their country??

--snip

Here's the easy answer.

Shit changes.

Different people, different agendas,

What are you upset about? That Obama's "promise" was "broken"? Come on. Thinking that any statement by any president is permanent, representing an unchangeable position by the president and our country is naive at best. I think you are probably more alarmed by the prospect of more combat, and particularly getting embroiled in fucking Iraq *again*. And that your longstanding dislike for President Obama gives you a wide open shot to take at him by tarring him with the label "promise breaker". Ok, go ahead, take your cheap shot. Get it out of your system.

But if there's more, if you want a serious discussion about what's going on in Iraq, with ISIS, our interests and how to protect them, that's ok too. Your call.

[Lamplighter]

Originally Posted by BigV

...What are you upset about? That Obama's "promise" was "broken"? Come on.
Thinking that any statement by any president is permanent, representing an unchangeable position by the president
and our country is naive at best...

No V. Sarge is right.

Look at what Woodrow Wilson did when he was President...
He said he would keep the U.S. out of WW I... the "war to end all wars”

But then look what he did when elected to the Presdency...
Sure, there was the “deliberately unfriendly” act of sinking the Luscitania
which killed 128 Americans and then some submarines sank some U.S. merchant ships.
But it was only 3 years after being elected President, he asked(!) Congress
to declare war on Germany, and that was the “War to end all wars”.

Regardless of anything else they might do during their presidency,
Wilson and Obama are just typical of the lying and flip-flopping Democrats.

I had not fully appreciated Sarge's thoughts... until now.

[djacq75]

Originally Posted by Big Sarge

Why are we back?? What did ISIS do to the US to warrant an intervention

ISIS has done a lot more to the US did than Saddam Hussein ever did to justify the first two "interventions." That said, getting back in is a major mistake. The only way the people in the region--Kurds, Turks, Saudis, etc. will fight as if their necks are on the line is for their necks to actually be on the line. We can't win it for them, and it's wrong on principle to try.

[tw]

Originally Posted by djacq75

We can't win it for them, and it's wrong on principle to try.

Paul Bremer and other extremists said otherwise last week. Bremer said we should spend maybe another ten years solving this problem. Deja Vue Nam. He was reciting the Domino theory without describing it by name. Either we stop them there or we must stop them here.

Bremer, who massacred many of the 5000 American soldiers (on direct orders from Rumsfeld), has no problem massacring another 5000 for no useful purpose. You would think he learned why his CPA order #1 and CPA order #2 violating the most basic military principles defined 2500 years ago. Nope. He still says that was correct. He blames others for a resulting insurgency.

Bremer publically denies his ignorance because he is not a moderate; because he is an extremist. Same types also created Nam.

The original mistake was defined here over a decade ago: Exit Strategy. And here in 2003 Gen'l Wes Clark says

... only when honest facts -the smoking gun - first exist. The WTC was a smoking gun. Milosevik was a smoking gun. Peral Harbor was a smoking gun. There was no smoking gun for Iraq. We now know the administration also knew that - but lied anyway. That is how an administration abuses military personal - just like in VietNam. ... Its about honesty - such as the aluminum tubes. A lie that will not stay buried. A lie that demonstrates why "we are stuck" in Iraq - a direct quote from General Zinni.

Deja vue Nam - if we listen again to wacko extremists who also said, "Reagan proved that deficits don't matter." And who cannot account for $billions - pallets of $100 bills - shipped to Iraq.