- Joined
- Nov 30, 2011
- Messages
- 5,586
- Reaction score
- 2,420
- Gender
- Male
- Political Leaning
- Independent
Bull crap. My husband even told while he was out that some Navy jets provided air support for them in Iraq and Afghanistan. It wasn't a lot, but it did happen. Plus, you claimed we were flying you guys in. That is not true when it comes to most carriers. We never had marines aboard my carrier but we sure flew a lot of missions into both Iraq and Afghanistan.
Sorry swabby but I've done multiple tours in both theaters and I've never spoken to any air from the Navy. It's been all Marine or Army, depending on the AO.
You seen how much damage this incompetent boob did in 3 years.............Imagine what he could do in 8 years when he does not have to worry about being reelected....
Sorry swabby but I've done multiple tours in both theaters and I've never spoken to any air from the Navy. It's been all Marine or Army, depending on the AO.
Bull crap. My husband even told while he was out that some Navy jets provided air support for them in Iraq and Afghanistan. It wasn't a lot, but it did happen. Plus, you claimed we were flying you guys in. That is not true when it comes to most carriers. We never had marines aboard my carrier but we sure flew a lot of missions into both Iraq and Afghanistan.
You might want to review how the Generals largely changed tactics without the President being fully aware. read The Gamble.
The event that turend things around in Iraq was what the Iraqis did, not the surge. I know it is hard for you to wrap your mind around this, but the Awaking was the major event, and that was Iraqi born and bred. And it was Lt. Gen. Raymond T. Odierno who largely help by changing the harsher tactics and got more intel with more reasonable approaches.
Obama was wrong in Afghanistan, but you fail to consider what he was told. The Generals said you could give us everythign we want, and we could still fail. Think about that for a minute, to waste that much, to have nothing that could be any way assured?
"The Americans have all the watches, but we have all the time."
-Taliban IO message after President Obama's speech announcing the Surge and a Timeline
Aug 24, 2010 President Barack Obama's July 2011 date to start withdrawing troops from Afghanistan has given a morale boost to Taliban insurgents, who believe they can wait out NATO forces, the top U.S. Marine said on Tuesday.
..."In some ways, we think right now it is probably giving our enemy sustenance," Conway, the Marine Corps' commandant, said of the July 2011 deadline.
"In fact we've intercepted communications that say, 'Hey, you know, we only need to hold out for so long.'"
Supporters of Obama's July 2011 date to start withdrawing forces from Afghanistan, conditions permitting, say it conveys a needed sense of urgency to Kabul. Afghans must quickly ramp up the size of their security forces for a gradual handover.
But critics say the strategy backfired, sending a signal to the Taliban that the United States was preparing to wind down the war while setting unrealistic expectations among Americans about the pace of progress in Afghanistan.
Conway, quoting one of his own commanders, told reporters: "We can either lose fast or win slow."...
General Douglas MacArthur said:"It is fatal to enter any war without the will to win it"
Except he never sent the troops that the CDRS in the field wanted for the surge.........That is why we are having such a hard time there................
Oh, so he's the least warmongering I see. So tell me, how many American citizens has Romney killed with drone strikes? How many bombs did he order dropped over Libya? How many troops did he send to Afghanistan?
You can go ahead and come back with "well.....he said he would" and I'll raise you some hope and change that never happened.
Kinda like these figures from Libya.
According to the Libyan Health office, the airstrikes killed 1,108 civilians and wounded 4,500 by July 13
Casualties of the Libyan civil war - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
And my husband did a tour in each theater while in, and he said that although it was rare for Navy to fly for them, they would rather have Navy than Army or AF support. The preferred is Marines though. Don't get me wrong, he said it was not often that Navy actually supported, particularly in Afghanistan, but it did happen.
And we were supporting something because I did one tour that had us flying for both OEF and OIF. You may not have seen them, but that doesn't mean we weren't helping. We certainly weren't sitting around, twiddling our thumbs.
Romney has publicly stated that the president should not have withdrawn the troops from Iraq, and that he pledged to increase military spending. He has denounced the President for weakness in dealing with Russia, America's "number one geopolitical foe". On Afghanistan, he has accused the president of giving in to the Taliban by issuing a timetable for troop withdrawal. Romney wants the US to get tougher with Iran.
Neither because both are warmongers that will send me to fight another useless war...........Until then, Ron Paul's getting a write in vote from me.
Both statements above show that I am not a supporter of Romney. I don't know why you feel the need to continue to bring him up in our discussion of your hypocrisy. Again, you are no longer a viable anti-war voice on this website because you plan to vote for a militant liberal. Simple as that.If he is not reelected, do you really believe Romney will honor that? I don't. I think he'll extend it indefinitely.
GOP WAR?! LOL!!! While President Bush did instigate the Iraq war, he certainly had bipartisan help to include your bestest buddy. Also, let's not lose sight of the fact that your aforementioned bestest buddy, that's President Obama btw, has doubled down in Afghanistan.Compare that to the civilian deaths in the almost-decade long GOP war in Iraq on behalf of big oil.
He sent an additional 30,000 troops into Afghanistan.
win.
"Winning" is a very tricky term in wars such as these.
I'd like to know exactly what we're "Winning" over there, because right now it seems like we're pouring treasure and blood into a bottomless pit/
Check out Garmsir these days. We just had a detachment get back from there - 7 months in former Bad Guy Land without a hostile shot fired. In the areas where Marines surged into the South and have been able to actually put COIN into place, it's working. It's just that our resources and available time are probably insufficient for the job at hand. If you want to inkblot, you have to let the ink spread.
After he was told that 40,000 was the minimum necessary to win. Obama tried to split the baby to make the best political decision, either unknowing or uncaring that that is the worst possible military decision.
For how long?
It's been 10 years, how much more blood and treasure do we squander?
A fully fledged functioning, stable democracy takes generations to solidify under good circumstances, let alone one with an islamist insurgency hell bent on returning it to the stone age.
If you define winning as areas being safe enough to put money into to build Afghanistan up using our treasure, rather than spending it at home where it belongs than I don't really know what to say.
I understand the argument that failed countries allow terrorists safe havens, but than we should be in Somalia as well. I thought we went there to punish the perpetrators of 9/11, not build a nation.
I do not like liberal/progressives like Obama one bit.
But AIPAC control our politicians on behalf of Israel.
And we will never be a Free country again until we disassociate America from that rogue state.
Obama stood up to What-a-yahoo a few months ago.
If the President doesn't have to worry about reelection.
My hope is he will put Israel in it's place for the good of our nation and people.
Israel is Not our 51st state and the Constitution does not say that we are to defend another nation.
It is not anti-semitic to distance our nation from Israel.
Just common sense to put America first.
Hesent about half of what they needed............I been meaning to ask you, did you send back the money you made in the last 10 years from the Bush Tax cuts..
Sure. You read The Strongest Tribe. Given that you apparently do not understand the differences between "tactics" and "strategy", I'm thinking you meant the latter. Which is still immaterial to the point - President Bush was out to win the war, and President Obama is out to win reelection. That's why Bush made unpopular decisions that supported the war effort, while Obama made decisions that crippled the war effort in order to be popular.
I think it's hilarious when you say crap like this.As though COIN was just about "sending more dudes". The Iraqi Awakening was part of the Surge, the turning of the populace is COIN. You are arguing that only one blade of scissors actually cuts the paper.
Oh, and we never utilized enhanced interrogation in Iraq in the first place.
Either you are all in to win, or you leave. Obama chose neither, but to simply try to split the baby. But half measures are worse than no measures - and sending a bunch of guys to Afghanistan but then giving them an artificial pre-set withdrawal date ensures that there will be no second blade of the scissors. It ensures that every single Afghan on both sides knows that the Americans are leaving on a certain date, and all the Taliban have to do is wait until that date plus one hour.
I know its subective but I've always had better experience with Army rotary rather than Marine. However, Marine fixed wing is better than anyones bar none. It's weird how that works.
I just don't see what support the Navy would have flown from a carrier. I do know the Navy was heavily involved during the invasion of Iraq but that was when we were fighting in Basra. However, they especially haven't been involved in OEF. That's why our guys had to secure Bagram so we could have air in theater.
Both statements above show that I am not a supporter of Romney. I don't know why you feel the need to continue to bring him up in our discussion of your hypocrisy. Again, you are no longer a viable anti-war voice on this website because you plan to vote for a militant liberal. Simple as that.
GOP WAR?!
You do know that I won't let you avoid the fact that you claim to be an anti-war crusader yet vote for a warmonger right? It's not going to happen. One of two things will need to happen for me to stop doing that. A) Admit you are a hypocrite B) Admit you're not as anti-war as you claim.I bring Romney up to show why I am voting for the better of the two candidates.
Democrats repeatedly voted for the funding of the Iraq War. Simple as that. You can act like this was a partisan issue all you want. It wasn't.Yep, a majority of Democrats voted against force in Iraq vs all but 7 of the Republicans that voted for force in Iraq.
You do realize he was givin 4 different options from various high ranking military officials right?Hesent about half of what they needed...........
No why would I?.I been meaning to ask you, did you send back the money you made in the last 10 years from the Bush Tax cuts..
Afghanistan is not Vietnam.Also how did sending those "extra needed troops" to Vietnam work out for us?
We use cookies and similar technologies for the following purposes:
Do you accept cookies and these technologies?
We use cookies and similar technologies for the following purposes:
Do you accept cookies and these technologies?