[niknik]

Originally Posted by Mr Poo ↗

After the Republican-led House of Representatives could not agree on an originating resolution to end the government crisis, as had been agreed, the Democratic-led Senate used bill H.R. 2775 to resolve the impasse, to satisfy the Origination Clause requirement of Article One of the United States Constitution, which requires that revenue bills must originate in the House of Representatives. Traditionally, appropriation bills also originate in the House of Representatives.

I have no idea why you copied this from Wikipedia. It doesn't say anything I didn't already tell you. I think you misunderstood what you copied and pasted. Or you would have pointed out a Republican in the Senate sponsored and introduced the bill your trying to sell as democrat.

Not that it matters. The government shutdown was a product of government not working for the American people. A product of no leadership in the White House.

Blaming the right or blaming the left just shows you're manipulated by political rhetoric. The truth is Obama is just as responsible for the shutdown as Boehner or Cruz or anyone else.

[Blewvane]

Originally Posted by rob666 ↗

He did say it would cost nothing, he said America would recoup the financial costs through oil sales.

I don't care if some Iraqis welcomed American occupation, or if the mood changes from time to time, the bottom line is things were not as promised.

In war, what promises really count? The only thing that matters is if you say you are going to back someone, you actually do it and stick around for the piss up after.
I don't care if the US asserts its dominance but I do understand an important reason why, and agree with the strategy. An army doesn't really count for much if it is full of personnel with no combat experience. The wests potential enemies combined have far superior numbers, allied nations combat experience and training may very well save our arses if the game goes in to full swing.

[rob666]

Originally Posted by Mr Poo ↗

You can't compare giving or selling weapons to moving active battalions in and out of a sovereign nation.

That would be like the US moving forces into baja california(Mexico) and declaring it US territory. Then using active tank battalions to battle the Mexican government at the Texas border. The whole time claiming it's just upset Mexican citizens that somehow have 100's of our tanks and are using them against the government.

Invasion is far from civil war..

Nobody is moving active battalions...... Giving arms and intelligence is the only thing that has been shown.
That is a far cry from sending in battalions of soldiers & tanks under orders from Moscow.

Where is the invasion? You really think that Moscow would have trouble taking Ukraine? You really think this is an invasion?

[rob666]

Originally Posted by TheVrist ↗

There really is no "fixed" policy, it is just something we have done since the North occupied the south under Lincoln (Ironic Obama breaks that tradition) as a way of taking responsibility as a nation. This is why we have occupations still all over the world.

It's called a policy, because it was considered a postwar policy under Lincoln, and for most part, every president since then has honored that regardless of, purpose, or party of the president in office during the declaration of war.

If presidents were pulling an Obama, after each new election, you can imagine the shit storm that would still be going on all over Europe, Japan, Korea over the course of history. It's sole purpose was to prevent a reason to have to return --

Thing is, during elections Americans were still in shell shock over a war they were not use too. It had been decades since Vietnam, and your average joe voters don't even know we have military installations still in korea et el. They think that when you pull out, you literally completely pull out. So it was just a strategy to say "we're pulling ALL our troops out of iraq" to later send troops to Afghanistan.

If he had said, "We will be moving forces to Afghan, but also secure our presence in Iraq" Do you think he would have gotten any vote support in the next election + get backing for war in a whole new place?

Not when naive Americans that don't understand we have postwar responsibilities to look after,and are hell bent on "bring our troops home"

If it was about manpower, and equipment shortage to baby sit Iraq until they were fully restored, I am quite confident we have plenty of post WWII installations still in operation near by that can afford to be relocated. (I know of one I lived at as a kid)

td:dr

Obama broke traditional postwar policy, for personal gain, now it's costing Americans more.

Bush promised 6 months, not Obama. If the American public elected him on a platform of withdrawal, then he's filled his mandate.
This is bush's war, bush's lies, and bush's idiocy. This is why his dad left saddam in power.

The consequences of staying in Iraq indefinitely, as has been the case in other places ( but not in every case ) would be even further inflammation of the Arab world, more terror attacks, more money, more lives lost.
The CIA refers to this as blowback.

This is a no win situation. If you stay in Iraq, you spend trillions ( the American economy was the target of 9/11 ) and they win. You create more terrorists, and give radicals ammunition...... ISIS is the remnants of the Iraqi resistance.

The only way to keep Iraq together, in it's current borders, is a permanent occupation..... The partition was inevitable the day saddam died.
You really want an indefinite occupation? I thought Obamas deficits were an issue for you. Is spending a few trillion more towards an unachievable goal worth it?

[rob666]

Originally Posted by niknik ↗

Again I'm not sure where you're getting these promises. War is fucking war, there are no guarantees. You had your expectations , and obviously they were not realistic.

Like I said previously. Iraq isn't over, I'm confident Iraq will pay back much of the cost of Iraqi Freedom. It didn't help Obama made a mess of the entire operation and set it back years.

I'm getting my promises from bush's words.

They're not my expectations, they're the expectations of idiots such as yourself with no ability of critical thinking.

I have no doubt you figure Iraq will somehow work out...... I wouldn't expect anything else from you

[rob666]

Originally Posted by niknik ↗

The UN is a worthless anti America and anti Israel organization. What good is the UN really? Anything the United Nations does has to be approved by China. Anything the United Nations does has to be approved by Russia. So what you're saying is our enemies decide what's right and wrong. That's insane. America shouldn't ever depend on the United Nations to be the authority on America's or the world's security.

Anti Israeli

[rob666]

Originally Posted by Blewvane ↗

In war, what promises really count? The only thing that matters is if you say you are going to back someone, you actually do it and stick around for the piss up after.
I don't care if the US asserts its dominance but I do understand an important reason why, and agree with the strategy. An army doesn't really count for much if it is full of personnel with no combat experience. The wests potential enemies combined have far superior numbers, allied nations combat experience and training may very well save our arses if the game goes in to full swing.

In war, the promise that counts the most is the promise to tell the truth as to WHY you're going to war. The voting public cannot make informed decisions if they are being fed bullshit.

Asserting dominance is one thing, invading other nations on false pretexts is another thing entirely.
If we keep this up, we're just increasing the chances of things going full swing.

[TheVrist]

Originally Posted by rob666 ↗

Bush promised 6 months, not Obama. If the American public elected him on a platform of withdrawal, then he's filled his mandate.
This is bush's war, bush's lies, and bush's idiocy. This is why his dad left saddam in power.

The consequences of staying in Iraq indefinitely, as has been the case in other places ( but not in every case ) would be even further inflammation of the Arab world, more terror attacks, more money, more lives lost.
The CIA refers to this as blowback.

This is a no win situation. If you stay in Iraq, you spend trillions ( the American economy was the target of 9/11 ) and they win. You create more terrorists, and give radicals ammunition...... ISIS is the remnants of the Iraqi resistance.

The only way to keep Iraq together, in it's current borders, is a permanent occupation..... The partition was inevitable the day saddam died.
You really want an indefinite occupation? I thought Obamas deficits were an issue for you. Is spending a few trillion more towards an unachievable goal worth it?

Combat ready presence are in the billions, Not trillions.
10-ish billion a year - Germany
7-ish billion a year - S. Korea
2 or so billion a year - Japan

And its only costing that much because these countries are failing to hold up their end of the bills.

But thanks to making bad decisions, derived from bad decisions, we will revisit more trillions spent on actual war time cost.

[niknik]

[quote =rob666;4426342]I'm getting my promises from bush's words.

They're not my expectations, they're the expectations of idiots such as yourself with no ability of critical thinking.

I have no doubt you figure Iraq will somehow work out...... I wouldn't expect anything else from you [/quote]

Yet I can't find those words. Did you have a private meeting with Bush or something?

I have no doubt you are and was against the war. So you'll focus and carry the message of any failure you can locate to push what a mistake it was. Because anything else would be admitting you're wrong. That's why your main focus is still on Bush. And not on Obama who basically guaranteed Iraqs current problems.

Link Bush's words where he said what you say.

[niknik]

Originally Posted by rob666 ↗

In war, the promise that counts the most is the promise to tell the truth as to WHY you're going to war. The voting public cannot make informed decisions if they are being fed bullshit.

Asserting dominance is one thing, invading other nations on false pretexts is another thing entirely.
If we keep this up, we're just increasing the chances of things going full swing.

Well consider that a kept promise. The truth was told.

And you actually accuse others of not thinking critically What about the voting public in Ukraine? And your stance on Russia invading Ukraine is it's not happened because Ukraine would be defeated in 2 days if that were true. That's your reason? Even with the mountain of evidence showing Russia invading Ukraine.

What do you think about Obama's lies about Iraq?
"We’re leaving behind a sovereign, stable and self-reliant Iraq." Obama