Pelosi: U.S. can't survive 2 terms of Trump

[Grim Reaper 6]

17 minutes ago, Not A Rockstar said:

Both are true. I saw the lies which got us in there, and I saw the politics that left it undone and even more died as a result longer term.

I do not believe in the myth that any politician cared about me on active duty and I still don't for the men and women in uniform today.

There is nothing that can be better said than your comments on how these low life politicians feel about our soldiers. That's another thing I don't like about Trump, his lack of military knowledge has already cost the lives of many soldiers in Syria. When Turkey invaded and he gave his ok, he didn't pull our soldiers back until they were receiving Artillery at danger close range when he knew the time and place of the attack. Here again he wouldn't listen to the Joint Chiefs of Staff, and his big brain put many US soldiers lives in jeopardy. 

I hope it doesn't but I think when the chit hits the rotating oscillator with Iran, he will put our people in a similar situation that will cost American lives. I hope he is gone soon, before his foolishness gets more of our brave soldiers killed for no reason.

 

Edited December 9, 2019 by Manwon Lender

[acidhead]

28 minutes ago, Not A Rockstar said:

woooooooooooooooooo

I agree (and you hit a very angry nerve right there, my friend, lol). If we go to war, we need to FINISH it. 

Or don't bother in the first case.

Just curious...

How would have you finished the Iraq war in 1991?

[acidhead]

18 minutes ago, Manwon Lender said:

I totally agree, and ya know if we had finished it there would have been no question about the Chemical weapons that came up later. I personal saw thousands of short tons of the crap laying in Iraqi Ammo dumps. I even took photos of the ****, but that's another story for another thread. 

Just curious...

How would you have finished the Iraq war in 1991?

[+Not A Rockstar]

4 minutes ago, acidhead said:

Just curious...

How would have you finished the Iraq war in 1991?

Firstly, everyone has an opinion and they all stink. Mine included. 

IMO, once we went in and had them on the run we should have kept going into Iraq. The support was huge within Iraq and the people were rising up and the troops were in full retreat. But, Bush got embarrassed out of there and we ended up right back at it later after they prepared and hid stuff and executed many who had risen up to support us.

What grinds me most about that second deal was my niggling belief that we really got into that because Bush 2 wanted to revenge on Bush 1 being held back from it.

The best option would have been to stay out of the whole thing probably, we should not be acting like police internationally, but at least in Kuwait we were requested, so there is a pretense of right to be there, I guess, and the Saudis paid 1mill a day for us to go and die there. TBH I felt insulted by that but there it is. USA got paid like common mercenaries.

Just how I see it, and saw it then. Americans died for oil and corporate interests. I don't like this world very much.

[Grim Reaper 6]

10 minutes ago, acidhead said:

Just curious...

How would you have finished the Iraq war in 1991?

Well with his military was totally destroyed, and with us sitting just short of Baghdad I would have finished taking the country. We would have had complete control in less than a month. Just think about all the tax dollars we would have saved by not letting him rebuild his forces before the final confrontation.

But most importantly it would have saved the lives of many American and Foreign Soldiers, and there is nothing more important than that. I also think overall the political situation in Iraq would have turned out differently. You see at that moment in time the enitre world was behind our actions because of Kuwait, which wasn't the case later.

Before the cease fire was called Iraqi were standing up in unoccupied zones and attacking their own forces. When they called the cease fire Repulican Gaurd troops went in and slaughtered these people and many others while we watched and could do nothing to help.

Edited December 9, 2019 by Manwon Lender

[Grim Reaper 6]

16 minutes ago, acidhead said:

Just curious...

How would you have finished the Iraq war in 1991?

Thanks for at least listening whether you agree or not.

[acidhead]

5 minutes ago, Not A Rockstar said:

Firstly, everyone has an opinion and they all stink. Mine included. 

IMO, once we went in and had them on the run we should have kept going into Iraq. The support was huge within Iraq and the people were rising up and the troops were in full retreat. But, Bush got embarrassed out of there and we ended up right back at it later after they prepared and hid stuff and executed many who had risen up to support us.

What grinds me most about that second deal was my niggling belief that we really got into that because Bush 2 wanted to revenge on Bush 1 being held back from it.

The best option would have been to stay out of the whole thing probably, we should not be acting like police internationally, but at least in Kuwait we were requested, so there is a pretense of right to be there, I guess, and the Saudis paid 1mill a day for us to go and die there. TBH I felt insulted by that but there it is. USA got paid like common mercenaries.

Just how I see it, and saw it then. Americans died for oil and corporate interests. I don't like this world very much.

Would you have occupied Iraq until a new government was formed or just left and let the Iraqis figure it out?

[acidhead]

8 minutes ago, Manwon Lender said:

Well with his military totally destroyed, and with us sitting just short of Baghdad I would have finished taking the country. We would have had complete control in less than a month. Just think about all the tax dollars we would have saved by not letting him rebuild his forces before the final confrontation.

But most importantly it would have saved the lives of many American and Foreign Soldiers, and there is nothing more important than that. I also think overall the political situation in Iraq would have turned out differently. You see at that moment in time the enitre world was behind our actions, which wasn't the case later.

Would you have occupied Iraq until a new government was formed or just left and let the Iraqis figure it out?

[+joc]

1 hour ago, Manwon Lender said:

In my mind their is nothing more important than protecting the lives of our soldiers.

And you are retired military...and Special Ops?   And you think the primary objective of the Commander in Chief is to protect our soldiers?  Our soldiers are soldiers to protect the lives of the American Public...which you rail against on a broad brush basis.  NeoCon this and Christian Zionist that...

You have no substance to any of your arguments.  Hand waving and name calling...and promoting yourself as somehow better than those who disagree with you.  Pathetic.

Typical Leftist.  Go figure.

Edited December 9, 2019 by joc

[+Not A Rockstar]

3 minutes ago, acidhead said:

Would you have occupied Iraq until a new government was formed or just left and let the Iraqis figure it out?

we'd kind of have to, but they would need to do that without us interfering more than was necessary for keeping peace. Perhaps, had this happened we might have been able to request Peace keepers from the UN if that would have been fairer.

[Tatetopa]

1 hour ago, Not A Rockstar said:

. NO politician, except MAYBE Tulsi gives a damn about the military or our blood. Not one does. All this Veterans respect spitola is just propaganda to keep up the supply of meat shields. When I saw what was told to the public over justifying Desert Storm, I lost my naïve faith in the government that very day, that very newscast and watching the president's lips moving. 

Truest thing on this thread.

[Grim Reaper 6]

6 minutes ago, acidhead said:

Would you have occupied Iraq until a new government was formed or just left and let the Iraqis figure it out?

We would have had to maintain order until a new government that was stable was in place. But the decisions on how that government would take shape should have been up to the Iraqi people, not the US like it turned to be later.

[acidhead]

4 minutes ago, Not A Rockstar said:

we'd kind of have to, but they would need to do that without us interfering more than was necessary for keeping peace. Perhaps, had this happened we might have been able to request Peace keepers from the UN if that would have been fairer.

So you'd occupy like 2003? Isn't this "finishing the war" the same solution Bush jr did?

[Grim Reaper 6]

7 minutes ago, joc said:

And you are retired military...and Special Ops?   And you think the primary objective of the Commander in Chief is to protect our soldiers?  Our soldiers are soldiers to protect the lives of the American Public...which you rail against on a broad brush basis.  NeoCon this and Christian Zionist that...

You have no substance to any of your arguments.  Hand waving and name calling...and promoting yourself as somehow better than those who disagree with you.  Pathetic.

Typical Leftist.  Go figure.

Your wrong on so many counts I will not even try to explain them to you. You just continue sitting in your armchair and let real men talk, there is no room for children here who can't comprehend the conversation.

Now that's really I mean really pathetic.

[acidhead]

3 minutes ago, Manwon Lender said:

We would have had to maintain order until a new government that was stable was in place. But the decisions on how that government would take shape should have been up to the Iraqi people, not the US like it turned to be later.

How could of occupying Iraq in 1991 be different than the 2003 invasion/occupation?  Nobody likes to be occupied by another Nation.

[+joc]

Just now, Manwon Lender said:

Your wrong on so many counts I will not even try to explain them to you. You just continue sitting in your armchair and let real men talk, there is no room for children here who can't comprehend the conversation.

Now that's really I mean really pathetic.

Again with the name calling.  You haven't explained anything.  You are a condescending loser.   And you are getting boring. So off to the Bliss Lounge I go.....woooooooosh

[+Not A Rockstar]

4 minutes ago, acidhead said:

So you'd occupy like 2003? Isn't this "finishing the war" the same solution Bush jr did?

No. Doing it in one go would have saved the lives of thousands of Iraqis who were purged out for uprising, patriots who had the capacity to organize and fight for the country. The purges were terrible and too anyone who did not adore the status quo. Had we done it the one time we would have had the support of the world and the people of Iraq, and avoided the deaths and instability and misery which later fed into the roots of the whole ISIS debacle and the Syrian mess. 

Not doing it in one go also cost us needless lives as well.

Occupy is not the same action as simply maintaining temporary order. The National Guard and FEMA does not occupy disaster sites they simply maintain order and a system of assistance until local governance can take it over again fully.

[Grim Reaper 6]

1 minute ago, acidhead said:

How could of occupying Iraq in 1991 be different than the 2003 invasion/occupation?  Nobody likes to be occupied by another Nation.

In 1993 the US Agenda was and has always been to make other nation like ours, which will never work. However in 1991, with World support and allowing the nation pick its new leadership, there may have been a chance in my opinion. But here again our government would have to have stepped back and allowed the people to control their own destiny with only the required support so that they could do so. 

Is this a dream maybe so but you asked what I would have done in your first post to me, and that's my answer.

[Grim Reaper 6]

14 minutes ago, joc said:

Again with the name calling.  You haven't explained anything.  You are a condescending loser.   And you are getting boring. So off to the Bliss Lounge I go.....woooooooosh

Good by Sweat Heart, oh and was that wooooosh all you dreams and expectations in life going down the toilet, I suspect so.

Realy Really Sad sad individual, who doesn't even understand that he started the name calling.

Just remember Denile is not a river in Egypt.

Edited December 9, 2019 by Manwon Lender

[Grim Reaper 6]

19 minutes ago, joc said:

Again with the name calling.  You haven't explained anything.  You are a condescending loser.   And you are getting boring. So off to the Bliss Lounge I go.....woooooooosh

Yea go smoke it up, take a deep hit off your bong for all the soldiers you would let die do to your fearless leader.

 

[acidhead]

8 minutes ago, Not A Rockstar said:

No. Doing it in one go would have saved the lives of thousands of Iraqis who were purged out for uprising, patriots who had the capacity to organize and fight for the country. The purges were terrible and too anyone who did not adore the status quo. Had we done it the one time we would have had the support of the world and the people of Iraq, and avoided the deaths and instability and misery which later fed into the roots of the whole ISIS debacle and the Syrian mess. 

Not doing it in one go also cost us needless lives as well.

Occupy is not the same action as simply maintaining temporary order. The National Guard and FEMA does not occupy disaster sites they simply maintain order and a system of assistance until local governance can take it over again fully.

Correct me if I'm wrong.  Approximately 5000 American soldiers have been killed so far since 2003 in Iraq. Never mind the wounded.  Most in the first couple years of the occupation.  Off the top of your head what % of the 5000 deaths would have occurred in 1991had the USA charged in there and occupied until a new government was formed? 10% 25% 50%?

[acidhead]

34 minutes ago, Manwon Lender said:

In 1993 the US Agenda was and has always been to make other nation like ours, which will never work. However in 1991, with World support and allowing the nation pick its new leadership, there may have been a chance in my opinion. But here again our government would have to have stepped back and allowed the people to control their own destiny with only the required support so that they could do so. 

Is this a dream maybe so but you asked what I would have done in your first post to me, and that's my answer.

 

Correct me if I'm wrong.  Approximately 5000 American soldiers have been killed so far since 2003 in Iraq. Never mind the wounded.  Most in the first couple years of the occupation.  Off the top of your head what % of the 5000 deaths would have occurred in 1991had the USA charged in there and occupied until a new government was formed? 10% 25% 50%?

 

[+Not A Rockstar]

24 minutes ago, acidhead said:

Correct me if I'm wrong.  Approximately 5000 American soldiers have been killed so far since 2003 in Iraq. Never mind the wounded.  Most in the first couple years of the occupation.  Off the top of your head what % of the 5000 deaths would have occurred in 1991had the USA charged in there and occupied until a new government was formed? 10% 25% 50%?

No clue, I am not God to know something like that about a theoretical outcome of something which never was.

However, when the troops were already routed, and given the popular support for us, I feel confident to say it would have been a lot less.

Problem is, that as Manwon said, there was a dream - of us behaving rightly, not forcing our answers on others for governmental forms. Just a dream, another thing which never was.

JMO. 

[Grim Reaper 6]

8 minutes ago, acidhead said:

 

Correct me if I'm wrong.  Approximately 5000 American soldiers have been killed so far since 2003 in Iraq. Never mind the wounded.  Most in the first couple years of the occupation.  Off the top of your head what % of the 5000 deaths would have occurred in 1991had the USA charged in there and occupied until a new government was formed? 10% 25% 50%?

 

While this is unexplained mysteries forum I can't tell the future or the past concerning what would or wouldn't have happened. It appears you have an opinion what do you think?

[acidhead]

5 minutes ago, Not A Rockstar said:

No clue, I am not God to know something like that about a theoretical outcome of something which never was.

However, when the troops were already routed, and given the popular support for us, I feel confident to say it would have been a lot less.

Problem is, that as Manwon said, there was a dream - of us behaving rightly, not forcing our answers on others for governmental forms. Just a dream, another thing which never was.

JMO. 

Yeah I wouldn't want to put a percentage on it either because we both know there'll be a percentage none the less.