[niknik]

Originally Posted by rob666 ↗

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.

I was against the war because this situation was guaranteed the day America invaded. This situation is why GW's dad left saddam in power.

This war was a was a war of CHOICE, not necessity.
You can blame whoever you want for not doing a good enough job of cleaning up the mess created by bush, but make no mistake who created this mess.[/QUOTE]






So do you just not care about Obama's intervention in Libya? In which he helped bring down a tyrant and left the nation in chaos. Now Libya is a terrorist breading ground and safe haven in civil war.

Notice how the media doesn't shed much light on this. But yet Libya carries all the same problems of Iraq but this mess can't be blamed on Bush.

[OhJstFkOffAlrdy]

Originally Posted by niknik ↗

I was against the war because this situation was guaranteed the day America invaded. This situation is why GW's dad left saddam in power.

This war was a was a war of CHOICE, not necessity.
You can blame whoever you want for not doing a good enough job of cleaning up the mess created by bush, but make no mistake who created this mess.

So do you just not care about Obama's intervention in Libya? In which he helped bring down a tyrant and left the nation in chaos. Now Libya is a terrorist breading ground and safe haven in civil war.

Notice how the media doesn't shed much light on this. But yet Libya carries all the same problems of Iraq but this mess can't be blamed on Bush.[/QUOTE]

What's really sad is that compared to Iraq, our intervention in Libya was negligible. Our intervention in Syria has up to this point been nonexistent, yet Assad was nonetheless incapable of crushing the resistance on the same order as Saddam had just a decade and change earlier in his own country. Even without American involvement, the likes of the FSA and ISIS have gained a foothold that would have been unheard of in the previous century. Their movement is gaining not only momentum, but popularity as well.

If we continue to rely on airstrikes and incomplete occupations, then eventually the funds simply will not be there and entire nation states will fall to the very same enemy against whom we so unanimously rallied in the aftermath of September Eleventh. The U.S. military-industrial complex will continue to grow and accrue massive wealth, the national debt will continue to skyrocket, federal paranoia and oversight of U.S. citizens will widen and intensify as the influence of ISIS & Co. spread to our national interior, political and socioeconomic divisions will deepen, and eventually the unchecked chaos of militant Islam will spill over full-force into Europe and begin to destabilize Western civilization on the front lines of where the West meets the Middle East.

Only blood and bodies in overwhelming numbers will stem that tide, and to assume otherwise would be short-sighted and foolish. It's a shame, however, that we can't realistically expect any better of our so-called "leaders."

[Blewvane]

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.

The vast majority of the voting public don't understand what goes on in global politics to begin with, and the minority that do can't agree on the colour of shit. Dumbing down the information is one way to feed the public information explaining the reasons for government decisions, bending the truth is another.

[St. Geno]

Jihad John just might be stuttering in their next propaganda video

[niknik]

Originally Posted by Metal Mike ↗

What's really sad is that compared to Iraq, our intervention in Libya was negligible. Our intervention in Syria has up to this point been nonexistent, yet Assad was nonetheless incapable of crushing the resistance on the same order as Saddam had just a decade and change earlier in his own country. Even without American involvement, the likes of the FSA and ISIS have gained a foothold that would have been unheard of in the previous century. Their movement is gaining not only momentum, but popularity as well.

If we continue to rely on airstrikes and incomplete occupations, then eventually the funds simply will not be there and entire nation states will fall to the very same enemy against whom we so unanimously rallied in the aftermath of September Eleventh. The U.S. military-industrial complex will continue to grow and accrue massive wealth, the national debt will continue to skyrocket, federal paranoia and oversight of U.S. citizens will widen and intensify as the influence of ISIS & Co. spread to our national interior, political and socioeconomic divisions will deepen, and eventually the unchecked chaos of militant Islam will spill over full-force into Europe and begin to destabilize Western civilization on the front lines of where the West meets the Middle East.

Only blood and bodies in overwhelming numbers will stem that tide, and to assume otherwise would be short-sighted and foolish. It's a shame, however, that we can't realistically expect any better of our so-called "leaders."

My thoughts exactly. There's no way to half ass a victory over isis or Islamic extremism. We have to drop all the pc and fight like we fought in ww2. Accept innocent people will die, and not let that determine our gains.

Stop spending $10,000,000 to kill 5 terrorist. Which is Obama's insane strategy.

[Mr Poo]

Originally Posted by rob666 ↗

If Russia wanted Crimea it would have it in less than a day.

I really don't understand how you guys figure the Ukraine is standing toe to toe with Russia militarily

Like I've said, I have no doubt that Russia has given arms and intelligence, and no doubt has advisors on the ground. Hell, there might even be a few troops.
But this whole idea of a full scale Russian invasion, which the Ukraine has somehow been able to fend off on it's own for months now

C'mon guys..... Let's be realistic.

And as far as a voting public, the voting public in crimes voted over 95% in favour of joining Russia.

If Russia wanted Crimea? They did want it, and they took it by sending in troops..

[ralucagymnast]

Originally Posted by Mr Poo ↗

If Russia wanted Crimea? They did want it, and they took it by sending in troops..

True; 95% voted "in favour of joining Russia"; you dont really have much choice when you have a gun pointed at your head lol.

[Mr Poo]

Originally Posted by ralucagymnast ↗

True; 95% voted "in favour of joining Russia"; you dont really have much choice when you have a gun pointed at your head lol.

Exactly, not to mention they "reported" over 80% voter turnout which is a highly suspicious figure.

From 1994 till 2007 the average voter turnout for the Verkhovna Rada elections had been 68.13%[21][22] The total voter turnout in the last (2012) parliamentary elections was the lowest ever with 57.99%;[23] The lowest turnout in these elections was in Crimea (with 49.46%)

But somehow they had an 83.1% turnout..

[rob666]

Originally Posted by TheVrist ↗

War and occupancy are two total different entities. The war for obvious reason cost trillions, but keeping a presence is substantially cheaper, than what it will cost to revisit, and resupply the efforts of war.

When Obama pulled out, we didn't retain the equipment sent there in the first place, Hummers, supply trucks, tanks (minus torrets/tracks) medical supplies, and equipment, trillions of dollars in this stuff was thrown in huge pits, covered in oil, and set ablaze. Because of the cost it would be to ship them back, would exceed the cost to simply rebuild. (whatever reasons)

Guess what happens now? When "boots hit the ground" we are sending in all the same shit we just buried there a few years ago.

Had Obama Ordered Military presence, like we have done prior for decades, that equipment would be in a cache.

If Obama had ordered military presence, ISIS wouldn't be in Iraq, even if they did try, we would have had earlier response time.

If Obama had ordered military presence, Our intel of ISIS development in SYRIA would be more "hands on"

If Obama had ordered military presence, the borders of the countries under attack would have been well protected.

Essentially, had Obama ordered military presence, we wouldn't be facing trillions more spent, on what was already deemed a worthless war.

The phantom trillions you speak of, was buried by Obama, and will now be spent again, by Obama.

BTW, for most part, the country using our military presence, pay a good portion of the cost.

Horseshit.

Call it whatever you want, the cost to maintain a presence in a hostile nation on the other side of the world costs a lot of money, far far more than a friendly one such as Germany or Japan.

And no, no they don't pay a good portion of the cost, because if that was the case America wouldn't be 1.7 trillion in the hole from the whole Iraq fiasco.

[rob666]

Originally Posted by niknik ↗

rob your stance is Russia doesn't want Ukraine. And Russia isn't directly or indirectly going for control of the entire nation. I'll remember that. When Russian tanks are marching on Kiev.

Good, go ahead.