Thread Rating:
10-12-2009, 09:09 PM
Ole RealVille didn't have anything to say to JoeFriday after that comeback, did you? What's the matter? :biggrin:
![[-]](https://bluegrassrivals.com/forum/images/lifestyle/collapse.png)
10-12-2009, 10:18 PM
I didn't think it qualified a response, because it is purely partisan. He is for troops dying as long as a republican is at the helm, then not for it if otherwise. You his cheerleader? I wasn't speaking with you. You know, the old A and B conversation.
10-12-2009, 10:32 PM
TheRealVille Wrote:I didn't think it qualified a response, because it is purely partisan. He is for troops dying as long as a republican is at the helm, then not for it if otherwise. You his cheerleader? I wasn't speaking with you. You know, the old A and B conversation.And here I thought you held the patent on that practice. I would check into possible infringement violations, if I were you.
10-12-2009, 11:18 PM
the only thing i can remember bush doing was going to war with iraq when afghanistan took down the trade centers.
1. The Iraq War that began on March 20, 2003 is also known as the Second Gulf War. Today, Iraq is occupied by multinational forces for more than six years.
2. The vast majority of multinational forces is composed of American and British troops.
3. Prior to the Iraq War, American intelligence had been claiming that Iraq had weapons of mass destruction. This deceitful information was the casus belli for the occupation of Iraq.
4. Some officials of America accused Saddam Hussein of collaborating with Al-Qaeda, but no evidence of any relations between them was ever found.
5. Some experts claim that America occupied Iraq due to its oil reserves.
6. The number of Iraq citizens killed since the beginning of the war ranges between 850,000 and one million civilians.
7. According to United Nations High Commissioner for Refugees, for the first five years of the occupation an estimated number of 4.7 million Iraqis were uprooted. In recent years, almost two million citizens of Iraq have fled the country. Most of the refugees live in Jordan and Syria.
8. In late February of 2009 U.S. President Barack Obama announced that US forces will leave Iraq in 18 months. Only some 30 to 50 thousand American troops will remain and train Iraqi security forces.
9. More than 4000 American soldiers were killed since the beginning of the Iraq War.
10. More than 845 billion dollars were spent by US government for the Iraq War.
1. The Iraq War that began on March 20, 2003 is also known as the Second Gulf War. Today, Iraq is occupied by multinational forces for more than six years.
2. The vast majority of multinational forces is composed of American and British troops.
3. Prior to the Iraq War, American intelligence had been claiming that Iraq had weapons of mass destruction. This deceitful information was the casus belli for the occupation of Iraq.
4. Some officials of America accused Saddam Hussein of collaborating with Al-Qaeda, but no evidence of any relations between them was ever found.
5. Some experts claim that America occupied Iraq due to its oil reserves.
6. The number of Iraq citizens killed since the beginning of the war ranges between 850,000 and one million civilians.
7. According to United Nations High Commissioner for Refugees, for the first five years of the occupation an estimated number of 4.7 million Iraqis were uprooted. In recent years, almost two million citizens of Iraq have fled the country. Most of the refugees live in Jordan and Syria.
8. In late February of 2009 U.S. President Barack Obama announced that US forces will leave Iraq in 18 months. Only some 30 to 50 thousand American troops will remain and train Iraqi security forces.
9. More than 4000 American soldiers were killed since the beginning of the Iraq War.
10. More than 845 billion dollars were spent by US government for the Iraq War.
10-12-2009, 11:59 PM
congressman Wrote:I have a question for those who support more troops in Afghanistan... When and how does this war end?
I don't support in anyway shape or form, more troops in Afghanistan. Its time to leave. Now.
Thank you for your service - proud to be able to correspond with someone who is thoughtful and supports our country.
With the Bush administration there was a strategic goal or objective to end terrorism. This is a tough mission and it was geared for the long term but it was deep rooted in cutting off the head of the snake, Bin Laden. Bush was ready to take the steps necessary to make that a success and he listened to his commanders in the field, complied with their recommendations, and was very successful in the execution of Iraqi Freedom and Afghanistan. However, now we have entered the Obama Administration and the strategic goals and objectives are less clear. It seems we are fighting "limited" warfare. Sound similar to Viet Nam? Soon there will be restrictions to what the American Troops in the field can do because we will be afraid of what the rest of the world will say about our strategic aim and the means to accomplish it. If we go into "limited" warfare like the Johnson Administration allowed us to do in Viet Nam, it will become a quagmire with no tangible strategic success and the lives of Americans will have been lost for nothing - this burns me to no end. War is terrible but limited war is horrific and senseless. Obama must continue with the strategic objective to get Bin Laden, he must support his commanders and give them the tools to make this war a success - we must annihilate the Taliban and there can be nothing limited about it. Once done - get the troops out and let the Pakistanis and the Afghanis secure their own countries. If there is going to be a time- line, give the commanders what they need to accomplish their objectives and strategic success. Desert Storm was swift and the objective was accomplished within 18 hours; Iraqi Freedom was swift and the Hussein Government was toppled; this is how we fight a war and the same effort must continue to be exerted on Bin Laden and that bunch of sheet heads. Stay safe! HOOAH!!!!
10-13-2009, 12:31 AM
TheRealVille Wrote:I didn't think it qualified a response, because it is purely partisan. He is for troops dying as long as a republican is at the helm, then not for it if otherwise. You his cheerleader? I wasn't speaking with you. You know, the old A and B conversation.
:dontthink : :yawn: :Cheerlead
10-13-2009, 01:14 AM
Joe Friday Wrote:Thank you for your service - proud to be able to correspond with someone who is thoughtful and supports our country.I agree if we are going to be there we need to give them whatever they need and want. However, you will not see anything in Afghanistan accomplished in a short time period. The Russian couldn't do it and we haven't been able to do it for several years either. This terrain in this country which has thousands of caves make it very hard to have success. Especially after we have played there for a number of years and given them time to build up their defenses in the area. We should have given all resources to this fight and stayed out of Iraq and maybe just maybe we would have accomplished something there by now. Let's not forget Scott Ritter former US Marine and UN weapons inspector in Iraq. He tried to tell each of us that we had no reason to invade Iraq but we wouldn't listen. Heck I ever called for him to be tried for treason due to not supporting the effort to go after Iraq. The funny thing is every thing that he claimed has turned out to be accurrate when referring to Iraq. We shouldn't have been there and if we had put all our resources into the fight in Afghanistan and hunting for Osama then we might not even be having this conversation.
With the Bush administration there was a strategic goal or objective to end terrorism. This is a tough mission and it was geared for the long term but it was deep rooted in cutting off the head of the snake, Bin Laden. Bush was ready to take the steps necessary to make that a success and he listened to his commanders in the field, complied with their recommendations, and was very successful in the execution of Iraqi Freedom and Afghanistan. However, now we have entered the Obama Administration and the strategic goals and objectives are less clear. It seems we are fighting "limited" warfare. Sound similar to Viet Nam? Soon there will be restrictions to what the American Troops in the field can do because we will be afraid of what the rest of the world will say about our strategic aim and the means to accomplish it. If we go into "limited" warfare like the Johnson Administration allowed us to do in Viet Nam, it will become a quagmire with no tangible strategic success and the lives of Americans will have been lost for nothing - this burns me to no end. War is terrible but limited war is horrific and senseless. Obama must continue with the strategic objective to get Bin Laden, he must support his commanders and give them the tools to make this war a success - we must annihilate the Taliban and there can be nothing limited about it. Once done - get the troops out and let the Pakistanis and the Afghanis secure their own countries. If there is going to be a time- line, give the commanders what they need to accomplish their objectives and strategic success. Desert Storm was swift and the objective was accomplished within 18 hours; Iraqi Freedom was swift and the Hussein Government was toppled; this is how we fight a war and the same effort must continue to be exerted on Bin Laden and that bunch of sheet heads. Stay safe! HOOAH!!!!
10-13-2009, 03:05 AM
CatDawg Wrote:I agree if we are going to be there we need to give them whatever they need and want. However, you will not see anything in Afghanistan accomplished in a short time period. The Russian couldn't do it and we haven't been able to do it for several years either. This terrain in this country which has thousands of caves make it very hard to have success. Especially after we have played there for a number of years and given them time to build up their defenses in the area. We should have given all resources to this fight and stayed out of Iraq and maybe just maybe we would have accomplished something there by now. Let's not forget Scott Ritter former US Marine and UN weapons inspector in Iraq. He tried to tell each of us that we had no reason to invade Iraq but we wouldn't listen. Heck I ever called for him to be tried for treason due to not supporting the effort to go after Iraq. The funny thing is every thing that he claimed has turned out to be accurrate when referring to Iraq. We shouldn't have been there and if we had put all our resources into the fight in Afghanistan and hunting for Osama then we might not even be having this conversation.:Thumbs:
I always thought little bush just wanted to finish daddys war
10-13-2009, 05:31 AM
Wildcatk23 Wrote::Thumbs:You always thought?
I always thought little bush just wanted to finish daddys war
Were you even born when daddy Bush went to war? You were what about 8 or 9 years old when 9-11 occured? Thank goodness for you they have this little thing called google. Right?:eyeroll:
10-13-2009, 05:37 AM
Wildcatk23 Wrote:the only thing i can remember bush doing was going to war with iraq when afghanistan took down the trade centers. 1. The Iraq War that began on March 20, 2003 is also known as the Second Gulf War. Today, Iraq is occupied by multinational forces for more than six years.
2. The vast majority of multinational forces is composed of American and British troops.
3. Prior to the Iraq War, American intelligence had been claiming that Iraq had weapons of mass destruction. This deceitful information was the casus belli for the occupation of Iraq.
4. Some officials of America accused Saddam Hussein of collaborating with Al-Qaeda, but no evidence of any relations between them was ever found.
5. Some experts claim that America occupied Iraq due to its oil reserves.
6. The number of Iraq citizens killed since the beginning of the war ranges between 850,000 and one million civilians.
7. According to United Nations High Commissioner for Refugees, for the first five years of the occupation an estimated number of 4.7 million Iraqis were uprooted. In recent years, almost two million citizens of Iraq have fled the country. Most of the refugees live in Jordan and Syria.
8. In late February of 2009 U.S. President Barack Obama announced that US forces will leave Iraq in 18 months. Only some 30 to 50 thousand American troops will remain and train Iraqi security forces.
9. More than 4000 American soldiers were killed since the beginning of the Iraq War.
10. More than 845 billion dollars were spent by US government for the Iraq War.
Oh, you can remember? Come on now!!!!
Again, I see you have the google thing down pat.
10-13-2009, 07:53 AM
Mr.Kimball Wrote:Oh, you can remember? Come on now!!!!Let's be fair now, Mr. Kimball. Don't rule out the possibility that Wildcat23 wrote 10 facts about Iraq War. Another possibility is that the blogger who published the list on the web plagiarized it from Wildcat23. I mean, really - who would copy and paste somebody else's thoughts when it is so easy to Google and find the original thinker on the web? That would just not make any sense.
Again, I see you have the google thing down pat.
10-15-2009, 07:18 PM
FWIW department:
Three of the five members of the Norwegian Nobel Committee had objections to the Nobel Peace Prize being awarded to US President Barack Obama, the Norwegian tabloid Verdens Gang (VG) reported Thursday.
http://www.breitbart.com/article.php?id=..._article=1
Three of the five members of the Norwegian Nobel Committee had objections to the Nobel Peace Prize being awarded to US President Barack Obama, the Norwegian tabloid Verdens Gang (VG) reported Thursday.
http://www.breitbart.com/article.php?id=..._article=1
10-18-2009, 02:29 PM
CatDawg Wrote:I agree if we are going to be there we need to give them whatever they need and want. However, you will not see anything in Afghanistan accomplished in a short time period. The Russian couldn't do it and we haven't been able to do it for several years either. This terrain in this country which has thousands of caves make it very hard to have success. Especially after we have played there for a number of years and given them time to build up their defenses in the area. We should have given all resources to this fight and stayed out of Iraq and maybe just maybe we would have accomplished something there by now. Let's not forget Scott Ritter former US Marine and UN weapons inspector in Iraq. He tried to tell each of us that we had no reason to invade Iraq but we wouldn't listen. Heck I ever called for him to be tried for treason due to not supporting the effort to go after Iraq. The funny thing is every thing that he claimed has turned out to be accurrate when referring to Iraq. We shouldn't have been there and if we had put all our resources into the fight in Afghanistan and hunting for Osama then we might not even be having this conversation.
Sorry CatDawg, wasn't trying to ignore your response, I just noticed it. Agree, Afganistan will be long-term and this is the reason we have to reinforce and support the troops presently with boots on the ground with the numbers that the field commanders have estimated and requested. Scott Ritter was bi-partisan in his criticism of Iraq Policy - we can all look back with hind-sight and make the right choices now. I will not criticize Scott Ritter, a man who served his country for 12 years as a U.S. Marine but I do believe he was used by the left to serve their anti-war purpose. I also believe President G. W. Bush is a decent and honorable man who listened to his advisors and the Intelligence Agencies when he made his decision to wage war on Iraq. He genuinely did what he believed was best for the security of our country.
01-14-2010, 09:14 PM
Obama stated he would donate the $1.4 million prize to charity. It’s been several weeks since he received the money and no one knows what’s happened to it.
The US Code is very clear in Receipt and Disposition of Foreign Gifts and Decorations. The code states:
[INDENT]1) The Congress consents to—
(A) the accepting and retaining by an employee of a gift of minimal value tendered and received as a souvenir or mark of courtesy; and
(B) the accepting by an employee of a gift of more than minimal value when such gift is in the nature of an educational scholarship or medical treatment or when it appears that to refuse the gift would likely cause offense or embarrassment or otherwise adversely affect the foreign relations of the United States, except that—
(i) a tangible gift of more than minimal value is deemed to have been accepted on behalf of the United States and, upon acceptance, shall become the property of the United States; and
[/INDENT][INDENT]
(ii) an employee may accept gifts of travel or expenses for travel taking place entirely outside the United States (such as transportation, food, and lodging) of more than minimal value if such acceptance is appropriate, consistent with the interests of the United States, and permitted by the employing agency and any regulations which may be prescribed by the employing agency.
(2) Within 60 days after accepting a tangible gift of more than minimal value (other than a gift described in paragraph (1)(B)(ii)), an employee shall—
(A) deposit the gift for disposal with his or her employing agency; or
(B) subject to the approval of the employing agency, deposit the gift with that agency for official use.
[/INDENT]I guess we’ll just have to wait for Obama’s tax returns in April to see where the money went.
http://biggovernment.com/2010/01/14/obam...ize-money/
The US Code is very clear in Receipt and Disposition of Foreign Gifts and Decorations. The code states:
[INDENT]1) The Congress consents to—
(A) the accepting and retaining by an employee of a gift of minimal value tendered and received as a souvenir or mark of courtesy; and
(B) the accepting by an employee of a gift of more than minimal value when such gift is in the nature of an educational scholarship or medical treatment or when it appears that to refuse the gift would likely cause offense or embarrassment or otherwise adversely affect the foreign relations of the United States, except that—
(i) a tangible gift of more than minimal value is deemed to have been accepted on behalf of the United States and, upon acceptance, shall become the property of the United States; and
[/INDENT][INDENT]
(ii) an employee may accept gifts of travel or expenses for travel taking place entirely outside the United States (such as transportation, food, and lodging) of more than minimal value if such acceptance is appropriate, consistent with the interests of the United States, and permitted by the employing agency and any regulations which may be prescribed by the employing agency.
(2) Within 60 days after accepting a tangible gift of more than minimal value (other than a gift described in paragraph (1)(B)(ii)), an employee shall—
(A) deposit the gift for disposal with his or her employing agency; or
(B) subject to the approval of the employing agency, deposit the gift with that agency for official use.
[/INDENT]I guess we’ll just have to wait for Obama’s tax returns in April to see where the money went.
http://biggovernment.com/2010/01/14/obam...ize-money/
01-27-2010, 02:47 AM
I wonder what the Nobel committee thinks now, one year after awarding Obama a Nobel Peace Prize for promise and potential. Given his lack of anything that could be described as a foreign policy accomplishment, Obama has probably ruined prospects for future candidates who have accomplished nothing but promised the moon.
I guess it is time for Obama to remind the Nobel committee whose fault it is that he has no accomplishments to show after a full year on the job - before they ask for their money back.
[Image: http://www.floppingaces.net/wp-content/u...rgtled.bmp]
I guess it is time for Obama to remind the Nobel committee whose fault it is that he has no accomplishments to show after a full year on the job - before they ask for their money back.
[Image: http://www.floppingaces.net/wp-content/u...rgtled.bmp]
Users browsing this thread: 1 Guest(s)
