Iraq

Thank the Lord Obama pledged no ground troops in Iraq. Obama ended OIF and brought the troops home. Mission Accomplished.

Fast forward: There will be absolutely NO BOOTS ON THE GROUND IN IRAQ! All U.S. military troops over there will...WEAR SANDALS! And, they will not be in a combat role. Incoming fire will be directed solely (pun intended) at the Iraqi troops our "advisors" are training. Failure of the IS militants to observe that courtesy will result in their being sued in the World Court!

Thank goodness we have a Glorious Leader. He follows a great tradition:

Income Tax will never be more than 3% of anyone's income: FDR

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

I did not have sex with that woman, Monica Lewinsky". Bill Clinton

How long should such a statement stand as an inviolable rule? When does it become less important to make one's current behavior consistent with a statement made in the past than it does to respond to current conditions in an appropriate fashion?

You're not real clear on how the Social Security trust fund works, are you? Here's a primer for you. Check out page 5, especially step 4). That's the step where the money collected from the SS taxes that isn't paid directly to the beneficiaries is invested; the surplus that accumulated is held in a "trust fund" and *invested*. Smart, right? It would be reckless and stupid to just store that money under the mattress or in a vault, losing value due to inflation, right?

What's the safest investment in the world? That's right, US Treasury bonds. That's what the were invested in. Not the highest return, just the most secure choice that has a return. Now, when the cash is "given" to the US Treasury by the Social Security Administration, the US Treasury gives the Social Security Administration a bond, a promise to repay the money, plus some interest. And the US Treasury gets the money, to spend. That's how much of the government's cash flow works, and you're not complaining about that. So let's just leave that alone.

Back to the SS trust fund. Actually, the government, the SS Administration, they *do* spend the money. They pay it out to the beneficiaries. But you probably meant some other part of the government. Regardless, there is no part of the government, apart from the SS Administration that has spent the money of the trust fund.

So... I don't know what you're complaining about.

Read my lips.

Big Sarge;913788 wrote:

Income Tax will never be more than 3% of anyone's income: FDR

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

You're just spouting bullshit now.
When the income tax started in 1913 the top rate was 7%.

There has never been any change in the way the Social Security program is financed or the way that Social Security payroll taxes are used by the federal government. The Social Security Trust Fund was created in 1939 as part of the Amendments enacted in that year. From its inception, the Trust Fund has always worked the same way. The Social Security Trust Fund has never been "put into the general fund of the government."

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.

BigV;913807 wrote:

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

Big Sarge;913834 wrote:

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.

Big Sarge;913834 wrote:

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?

Big Sarge;913834 wrote:

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:

Big Sarge;913788 wrote:

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.

Big Sarge;913834 wrote:

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.

BigV;913852 wrote:

...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.

Sarcasm noted.

Lying under oath is serious.

Agreed.

But only for serious matters, only for significant matters.

Bullshit. You can take this to the Nth degree, but it matters - without qualifiers.

Ok, fine.

It's serious in direct proportion to the significance of the question.

The significance of this question was solely to shame, embarrass and humiliate the president. I stand by my earlier remarks that a better, and truthful answer to the question would be "None of your business."

Big Sarge;913788 wrote:

...

Thank goodness we have a Glorious Leader. He follows a great tradition:

Income Tax will never be more than 3% of anyone's income: FDR

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

I did not have sex with that woman, Monica Lewinsky". Bill Clinton

"Saddam Hussein has yellow cake uranium" GW Bush

"I don't recall" Ronald Reagan about Iran/Contra

"I am not a crook" Richard Nixon

The only thing worse than someone who changes his mind, when presented with additional information, is someone who doesn't

I'll quit kidding around and get to the point. We should not interfere in a religious based conflict in Syria and Iraq. ISIS is not a threat to the US. Also, the government of Iraq made it quite clear they did want US troops when they refused to sign a status of forces agreement.

If we halt our meddling in the attempted establishment of a caliphate, ISIS will soon reach the Shia holy sites in Karbala. Either this or an attack on Baghdad will trigger an armed response by Iran. Thus ISIS and Iran will move into a mutual destruction scenario and greatly reduce the ability of either to project outside of SW Asia.

WWI was mentioned earlier in this thread. I am more than willing to debate the actions of President Wilson and manipulation of the media that drew us into the war. I see the issue of the RMS Lusitania has been thrown up. Don't forget Germany had warned Britain and the Lusitania was transporting munitions and sub components. Germany gave this warning prior to the sinking:

Notice!
Travellers intending to embark on the Atlantic voyage are reminded that a state of war exists between Germany and her allies and Great Britain and her allies; that the zone of war includes the waters adjacent to the British Isles; that, in accordance with formal notice given by the Imperial German Government, vessels flying the flag of Great Britain, or any of her allies, are liable to destruction in those waters and that travellers sailing in the war zone on the ships of Great Britain or her allies do so at their own risk.
Imperial German Embassy
Washington, D.C. 22 April 1915

Spexxvet - You are aware Iraq had 550 tons of yellow cake uranium stockpiled? In 2008, the US facilitated the transfer to Canada. Also prior to the OIF, Italian military intelligence created false reports of attempts by Iraq to purchase yellow cake from Niger. These reports were fed to the US on at least three separate occasions and to Great Britain, thus creating a second source falsely verified by allied intelligence agencies.

Big Sarge;914399 wrote:

Spexxvet - You are aware Iraq had 550 tons of yellow cake uranium stockpiled? In 2008, the US facilitated the transfer to Canada. Also prior to the OIF, Italian military intelligence created false reports of attempts by Iraq to purchase yellow cake from Niger. These reports were fed to the US on at least three separate occasions and to Great Britain, thus creating a second source falsely verified by allied intelligence agencies.

I trust snopes.com, who reports that the yellow cake, of which you speak, was not WMD, it was reactor-grade uranium, stored (and under UN supervision) since 1991. There was no need to lose 3,000+ Amercians and add trillions to the national debt for that.

http://www.snopes.com/politics/war/yellowcake.asp

Big Sarge;913834 wrote:

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.

Spexxvet;914409 wrote:

I trust snopes.com, who reports that the yellow cake, of which you speak, was not WMD, it was reactor-grade uranium, stored (and under UN supervision) since 1991. There was no need to lose 3,000+ Amercians and add trillions to the national debt for that.

http://www.snopes.com/politics/war/yellowcake.asp

Yellowcake (urania) is yellowcake. It has to be refined to be used as fuel or WMD. BTW, Snopes is not the end all authenticator. It's a couple of people using Google

djacq75;914620 wrote:

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.

Big Sarge;914842 wrote:

Yellowcake (urania) is yellowcake.

And it has been under the supervision of the UN since king george I.