What's new
By:
USCHO Fan Forum

This is a sample guest message. Register a free account today to become a member! Once signed in, you'll be able to participate on this site by adding your own topics and posts, as well as connect with other members through your own private inbox!

  • The USCHO Fan Forum has migrated to a new plaform, xenForo. Most of the function of the forum should work in familiar ways. Please note that you can switch between light and dark modes by clicking on the gear icon in the upper right of the main menu bar. We are hoping that this new platform will prove to be faster and more reliable. Please feel free to explore its features.

The Global War on Terror 5.0: Putin on the Risk

Status
Not open for further replies.
Re: The Global War on Terror 5.0: Putin on the Risk

joecct said:
Aren't bomber pilots combat troops?
Click to expand...

The problem is the real enemy is at 1600 Pennsylvania Ave.

U.S. Rep. Lynn Westmoreland (R-Grantville) addressed the Benghazi investigation and terrorist organization ISIS among other topics Saturday morning at the Cobb County GOP breakfast at its headquarters. […]

“I’m not going to stand here and confirm or deny anything,” Westmoreland told the crowd. “Our job is to figure out the truth.”

Westmoreland spent much of his speech criticizing Democrats. “I think our enemy stands on 1600 Pennsylvania Ave.,” Westmoreland said to loud applause.
Click to expand...

http://www.msnbc.com/rachel-maddow-show/benghazi-creeps-back-spotlight
 
Re: The Global War on Terror 5.0: Putin on the Risk

Wow. John McCain is slamming Obama on MSNBC right now. Banging those drums. Holy.......................

And here's the Bone Man statement. Another skewer. Slam.
 
Last edited:
Re: The Global War on Terror 5.0: Putin on the Risk

ScoobyDoo said:
Wow. John McCain is slamming Obama on MSNBC right now. Banging those drums. Holy.......................

And here's the Bone Man statement. Another skewer. Slam.
Click to expand...

It's pretty easy to write a Republican statement. You start with the conclusion that Obama is evil and then just backfill the "reasons."
 
Re: The Global War on Terror 5.0: Putin on the Risk

Kepler said:
It's pretty easy to write a Republican statement. You start with the conclusion that Obama is evil and then just backfill the "reasons."
Click to expand...

I never seen someone so upset as McCain was tonight. Someone stole his ice cream.
 
Re: The Global War on Terror 5.0: Putin on the Risk

Kepler said:
It's pretty easy to write a Republican statement. You start with the conclusion that Obama is evil and then just backfill the "reasons."
Click to expand...

Or just rewrite the Bush releases.
 
Last edited:
Re: The Global War on Terror 5.0: Putin on the Risk

I think if Republicans want ground troops committed to Iraq, they should come out and say so. We all know what sad old man McCain really wants, its time for him and his pals to say it in public. The guy's not afraid of hitting the Sunday talk show circuit, to say the least. Campaign on a "lets invade Iraq AND Syria" platform. I have no idea if that's the GOP's stance in total, but these neo-conservative failures need to own to what they'd really like to do. How many troops would you commit, and for how long?
 
Re: The Global War on Terror 5.0: Putin on the Risk

Rover said:
I think if Republicans want ground troops committed to Iraq, they should come out and say so.
Click to expand...

Better yet, whoever -- Dem or GOP -- proposes war should have to also propose how we pay for it. I want explicit war taxes, levied over and above the general tax structure. Make it hurt. If it's truly a national interest, people will be willing to pay for it. Or put it this way: a national interest is defined as that for which people are willing to pay.
 
Re: The Global War on Terror 5.0: Putin on the Risk

Kepler said:
What I was suggesting was to have no formal international entity at all, but an informal conspiracy among the major players to each police their own sector and not object when the others do the same.
Click to expand...

In other words, you'd resurrect the Monroe Doctrine and let other major powers each do the same on their own continents, eh?
 
Last edited:
Re: The Global War on Terror 5.0: Putin on the Risk

FreshFish said:
In other words, you'd resurrect the Monroe Doctrine and let other major powers each to the same on their own continents, eh?
Click to expand...

Beats the Carter Doctrine, anyway.

If we're going to exploit people and steal their oil, for god's sake let's make those people Canadian. It's closer, the women are prettier, they already speak English and they've got hockey.
 
FreshFish said:
what part of my use of the word "pretext" did you not understand?? :rolleyes:
Click to expand...

Probably because every other word in that post invalidated its usage. Truth and transparency should matter - even here. But you've got their shtick down pat, I'll give you that.
 
Last edited:
Re: The Global War on Terror 5.0: Putin on the Risk

Slap Shot said:
Probably because every other word in that post invalidated its usage. Truth and transparency should matter - even here.
Click to expand...

You are not making any sense. I said that the "pretext" for the invasion was a failure to abide by 2 UN resolutions, and that Saddam could have invalidated that pretext by allowing the weapons inspectors access. Those are both true statements.

If you are saying that the BBC story I linked to did not contain true statements, then take that up with the BBC, not me. Most people seem to think that BBC news is pretty well sourced though.
 
Re: The Global War on Terror 5.0: Putin on the Risk

ScoobyDoo said:
What part of Bush lied did you not understand?
Click to expand...

Where is your evidence that Bush knew that Saddam did not have WMDs yet knowingly claimed otherwise?

Perhaps you are just too young to remember Secretary of State Colin Powell's slide show at the UN??

The preponderence of the evidence (that received something like a 73 - 27 vote in the Senate, by the way, so does that make those 73 Senators all "liars" too??) is that Bush believed something that turned out to be incorrect. I'm not going to defend the way they handled the occupation; I merely am not going to agree that there was a deliberate act of deception.


Let's not even get into "if you like your health plan you can keep your health plan" :(
 
Re: The Global War on Terror 5.0: Putin on the Risk

FreshFish said:
Where is your evidence that Bush knew that Saddam did not have WMDs yet knowingly claimed otherwise?

Perhaps you are just too young to remember Secretary of State Colin Powell's slide show at the UN??

The preponderence of the evidence (that received something like a 73 - 27 vote in the Senate, by the way, so does that make those 73 Senators all "liars" too??) is that Bush believed something that turned out to be incorrect. I'm not going to defend the way they handled the occupation; I merely am not going to agree that there was a deliberate act of deception.


Let's not even get into "if you like your health plan you can keep your health plan" :(
Click to expand...

Colin Powell has all but retracted that. There are numerous books and documentaries that show evidence that that slideshow was BS and everyone knew it was BS when it happened. But, you go ahead and believe Fix News.
 
Re: The Global War on Terror 5.0: Putin on the Risk

You're really going to claim the world (or to be more precise anyone that ceded opposition) was sold on the invasion by only citing Saddam giving the UN the finger? Operation Iraqi Freedom according to Junior and Blair, the was a mission, "to disarm Iraq of weapons of mass destruction, to end Saddam Hussein's support for terrorism, and to free the Iraqi people".

And Scooby is correct that evidence is out there the selling of it was a dog and pony show with gobs of fake intel.

Again honesty and transparency matter.
 
Re: The Global War on Terror 5.0: Putin on the Risk

ScoobyDoo said:
Colin Powell has all but retracted that. There are numerous books and documentaries that show evidence that that slideshow was BS and everyone knew it was BS when it happened. But, you go ahead and believe Fix News.
Click to expand...

DOS and the IC knew it was BS, but they also knew the White House only wanted "evidence" with one answer. So they cherry-picked and sent it up the chain to the Bush politicals, and they said nothing when ginned-up garbage from Iraqi ex-pat fortune hunters with an eye to the killing they'd make after the US invasion was presented as "chilling inside testimony." The members of the Intel committees probably knew it was BS but the GOP members wanted the war and the Dem members were terrified of being "soft on terrorism." The Brits knew it was pure BS and I still don't know why Tony went along for the ride. PNAC and the oil companies had the war drawn up by 1995 and were just waiting for incumbency in the White House and a pretext. SCOTUS gave them one and OBL gave them the other.

Other than a handful of intel analysts who spoke truth to power and Shinseki who told Rummy to his face that he was lying, and a handful of "crazy, far left, surrender monkeys!!!11!" who had it all pegged right from the get-go, nobody came out of that disaster looking good, but the real culprits, in order of guilt, were the Neocon idiots with their 11th grade understanding of geopolitics, the Rovian politicos who were willing to kill a few thousand servicemen and waste a few trillion dollars for some electioneering, and the whole John Birch edifice of the American right for not only allowing it to happen but cheering it on like a vapid SEC football crowd.

A few on the right have actually managed to learn something and at least have distanced themselves from that dumpster fire, but all the Neocons and most of the Noise Machine is still waist deep in their own filth and claiming it's rosewater. They are, literally, never going to learn. The best we can do is keep sharp objects away from them until they pass away in the nursing home.
 
Last edited:
Re: The Global War on Terror 5.0: Putin on the Risk

And for the new war that started last night officially there are many saying that the only reason we're going all in on ISIS(L) is because of the beheadings of our journalists.

That's not a reason to go to war. I hope the **** they come up with something better.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top