# Before today is completely over......



## AZ Jim (May 25, 2015)

I want to post a short list of those who are more than happy to send troops to die in the middle east.  You'll recognize most if not all of the names.
Ted Nugent 
Bill O'Reilly
Bill Krystol
Sean Hannity
Glen Beck
Rush Limbaugh
Dick Cheney
Mitch McConnell
Keven McCarthy
Mitt Romney

Some of these people were not in position to make official statements supporting sending troops but are supporters of those who are and have touted themselves as true Red White and Blue patriots.

How many of them served in the Armed Forces?

Yep!!!! Not a single solitary one of them.


----------



## Ameriscot (May 26, 2015)

Not surprised.  Politicians kids rarely serve either.


----------



## Glinda (May 26, 2015)

Since they are so patriotic, let's enact a special law that allows them to be the first to go!


----------



## Ralphy1 (May 27, 2015)

Veterans and the military in general have become another minority group once the draft was eliminated...


----------



## koala (May 27, 2015)

Glinda said:


> Since they are so patriotic, let's enact a special law that allows them to be the first to go!



Yes let them lead by example including our Prime Minister who has been listening to the US talk and now is thinking of sending more troops.


----------



## QuickSilver (May 27, 2015)

Saw a montage last evening of the Republican presidential hopefuls, all talking about how they would bomb the hell out of ISIS and Iran, and send in troops.. tens of thousands of them..   It was Rubio, Trump, Graham, Jindal, and a few others that I am forgetting... anyway.. Lots of bravado.. but not one single plan or comment on what we would do AFTER we bombed the hell out of them..  and that friends is the bigger problem.


----------



## Ralphy1 (May 27, 2015)

We would destroy ISIS and leave with the nation-building left to the resident population with some economic aid...


----------



## QuickSilver (May 27, 2015)

Oh sure.... and all the tribal discourse would magically go away.. and our "aid" wouldn't be waylaid by some other extremist Sunni group, quick to take the place of ISIS.. unwilling to live with the indignity of a Shia government... and yada yada yada yada yada...  ad infinatum.

MORE American lives spent is never going to undo the damage GW Bush has done to destabilize the region.  It cannot be fixed by our continued meddling


----------



## Ralphy1 (May 27, 2015)

Sorry, but more and more legitimate voices are saying that ISIS must be stopped even if it means boots on the ground, even Obama said that if ISIS tries to get a nuke that he would send in the troops...


----------



## QuickSilver (May 27, 2015)

Ralphy1 said:


> Sorry, but more and more legitimate voices are saying that ISIS must be stopped even if it means boots on the ground, even Obama said that if ISIS tries to get a nuke that he would send in the troops...




What are you saying?  My voice is not legitimate?


----------



## Ralphy1 (May 27, 2015)

No, no, I am saying that it just isn't hawkish politicians but a lot of ME analysts, former and present military, CIA types, professors, etc., that are now becoming alarmed...


----------



## QuickSilver (May 27, 2015)

Then.... ISIS will be replaced by something just as bad... if not worse..   There is no fixing the mess that was made. Not unless we commit to spending all our resourses in policing the ME... while all our infrastructure, schools, utilities and transit goes straight to hell..


----------



## Ralphy1 (May 27, 2015)

Not necessarily,  ISIS is a threat to the world but the Sunnis and the Shiites are only threats to each other with the exception of Iran...


----------



## QuickSilver (May 27, 2015)

ISIS is LOVES sabre rattling and shock value....  They talk big about world takeover, but their primary goal is to wipe out Shiites..  ALL the beheadings and burnings are to cause the Shia to run like scared babies... as evidenced by their latest conquest of Ramadi.  Their tactics work.   Iran is Shia.... and Iran is after ISIS.. is that a bad thing?

You have to remember... THERE IS NO IRAQ..  not any longer..  it's open territory for the Shia, the Sunnis and perhaps the Kurds to fight over.   Iraq was a figment of the United Kingdom's imagination in 1919...  It's gone...  Bush and company saw to that... although I don't think that's what they believe would happen..  How short sighted and stupid..


----------



## Ralphy1 (May 27, 2015)

Saw an excellent program on BBC about ISIS.  This is not just a bunch of fanatics running around.  They do have structure and governmental agencies and the Shiites are only one group on their hit list.  To put it bluntly, they have greater ambitions and we had better take a closer look...


----------



## Warrigal (May 27, 2015)

Ralphy1 said:


> Saw an excellent program on BBC about ISIS.  This is not just a bunch of fanatics running around.  They do have structure and governmental agencies and the Shiites are only one group on their hit list.  To put it bluntly, they have greater ambitions and we had better take a closer look...



So did Genghis Kahn.


----------



## Ralphy1 (May 27, 2015)

I just heard that the armored vehicles that we supplied and were left behind by the fleeing Iraqui soldiers are now being turned into massive moving suicide bombs that could take out a city block.  There is an old expression in chess, never underestimate your opponent...


----------



## QuickSilver (May 27, 2015)

Ralphy1 said:


> I just heard that the armored vehicles that we supplied and were left behind by the fleeing Iraqui soldiers are now being turned into massive moving suicide bombs that could take out a city block.  There is an old expression in chess, never underestimate your opponent...



Yeah... so lets send lots more over there.... give them to the Iraqi army when we are done losing more American lives... and let them abandon them to ISIS or it's replacement again..   Really good plan


----------



## BobF (May 27, 2015)

That big push to get out of Iraq is the biggest problem made a few years back.    Being there to help Iraq design their own new government was a good move.   Then leaving was the big mistake.

We should have done as the allies did after the end of WWII in Europe and Japan.   We stayed on for some unspecified years and helped keep radicals from taking over countries in Europe.   Look how long we stayed in Berlin itself.   Pretty much stifled the communist efforts to take over Germany after WWII ended.   Good thing too as much of Europe is living without there wars every 20 years or so.   Still having some problems in the area of Russia, but not likely communist any more, just territorial as many seem to support.

Those radicals in the Arab countries see no boundaries to what they intend to do.   Wild religious folks see what they intend to do as better for the world than anything else imaginable.   Those outside the religious mobs will always need to protect themselves at all times.   To that religious mob they see things as simple as can be.   Be one of us entirely, or be dead.


----------



## QuickSilver (May 27, 2015)

Why was it the West's business to impose those boundaries in the first place?  Those were imposed on the tribes... they were not designed by the tribes.  It's would be like a foreign entity coming to the States and reconfiguring where New York ends and where Connecticut begins..  Or giving Arizona part of California.  What has blurred though,  is what is religious and what is political..  This is how a Theocracy functions, and they are simply fighting over who has the power over the other.   We need to stay out of it..  We have mucked it up enough.  Sadam Hussein was a despot to be sure.  BUT he was a Sunni, and kept a pretty tight reign on the infighting.  He is gone and all hell is breaking lose..  If ISIS is stamped out... another group will take it's place.... and It's not going to be a democracy no matter how much we wish it, or how many times we go over there to be the policeman.


----------



## BobF (May 27, 2015)

QuickSilver said:


> Why was it the West's business to impose those boundaries in the first place?  Those were imposed on the tribes... they were not designed by the tribes.  It's would be like a foreign entity coming to the States and reconfiguring where New York ends and where Connecticut begins..  Or giving Arizona part of California.  What has blurred though,  is what is religious and what is political..  This is how a Theocracy functions, and they are simply fighting over who has the power over the other.   We need to stay out of it..  We have mucked it up enough.  Sadam Hussein was a despot to be sure.  BUT he was a Sunni, and kept a pretty tight reign on the infighting.  He is gone and all hell is breaking lose..  If ISIS is stamped out... another group will take it's place.... and It's not going to be a democracy no matter how much we wish it, or how many times we go over there to be the policeman.



Years back it was some sort of set up from the English government of those days.   What was recently done in Iraq was the desires of the people themselves.   They had months of time allowed to describe the country they wanted.   They then had months of time setting it up and having elections to establish the new design.   To me, the big problem was in not staying around long enough to make sure the government actually got developed as the people had chosen and elected.   Unfortunately we ran and the elected government did not give themselves time to allow the new government to develop and the religious from Iran came in and took over the government, not allowing it to develop as it should.   The forces that had help take over Iraq and make it possible for them to develop and elect a new style of government should have stayed in place long enough to see it all mature, as we did in Europe and Japan after WWII.

What we have now is not the results planned for Iraq after Saddam.   A self described, not religious run, government of elected people.    So close to being a real free and non religious driven country.   But instead we left and allowed a neighboring country, Iran, take over and now the entire area of Iraq is in total mess and disrepair.


----------



## QuickSilver (May 27, 2015)

BobF said:


> Years back it was some sort of set up from the English government of those days.   What was recently done in Iraq was the desires of the people themselves.   They had months of time allowed to describe the country they wanted.   They then had months of time setting it up and having elections to establish the new design.   To me, the big problem was in not staying around long enough to make sure the government actually got developed as the people had chosen and elected.   Unfortunately we ran and the elected government did not give themselves time to allow the new government to develop and the religious from Iran came in and took over the government, not allowing it to develop as it should.   The forces that had help take over Iraq and make it possible for them to develop and elect a new style of government should have stayed in place long enough to see it all mature, as we did in Europe and Japan after WWII.
> 
> What we have now is not the results planned for Iraq after Saddam.   A self described, not religious run, government of elected people.    So close to being a real free and non religious driven country.   But instead we left and allowed a neighboring country, Iran, take over and now the entire area of Iraq is in total mess and disrepair.



Not at all what happened Bob.   What happened was that Maliki set up the new Iraqi government and all but shut out the Sunnis making it primarily a Shiite run government..   THEN Maliki refused to grant immunity to our troops which would have allowed the US to stay longer..  We had no choice but to follow George Bushes negotiated timeline for troop withdrawal.  It was Maliki's decision we leave... not President Obama's.  

     ISIS is  Sunni... like Sadam Hussein.  They came into power because they felt the need for revenge against the overthrown dictator,  and because they were shut out of the Maliki regime..   This is the primary reason ISIS started.  In additional most of the middle class Sunni's who felt excluded suddenly preferred the Militants.. ie ISIS to the Shiite dominated Maliki government. 

     Iran happens to be Shiite.   They hate ISIS because they are taking control of territory Iran considers Shiite.  This is why Iran is moving in to Iraq... they don't consider it Iraq.. they want to take control of territory that ISIS is claiming to be Sunni.  In fact they are fighting with the Shiite government against ISIS.. they have not taken over the government. 

We may have been able to keep the peace by staying in Iraq, however, no matter how long we stayed, this ancient battle between the Sunnis and the Shiites would have erupted as soon as we left.   ISIS simply filled the void left by the death of Sadam Hussein.


----------



## AZ Jim (May 27, 2015)

My only point is being lost in the noise of what if's.  Why do the chickenhawks in the Republican "mouth squad" all avoid military service?


----------



## QuickSilver (May 27, 2015)

AZ Jim said:


> My only point is being lost in the noise of what if's.  Why do the chickenhawks in the Republican "mouth squad" all avoid military service?



Well, it's really easy to thump your chest and rattle your sword when you don't have to shed your blood, or the blood of your family.  Also, they are killing two birds with one stone..  They are appealing to a faction of their base that feels fighting and killing makes one a patriotic American, and reasoning and negotiating makes one weak.    The other and more powerful faction is the Military Industrial complex, whose barons always make billions from a well funded war.  They also tend to contribute generously to campaign coffers.


----------



## AZ Jim (May 27, 2015)

QuickSilver said:


> Well, it's really easy to thump your chest and rattle your sword when you don't have to shed your blood, or the blood of your family.  Also, they are killing two birds with one stone..  They are appealing to a faction of their base that feels fighting and killing makes one a patriotic American, and reasoning and negotiating makes one weak.    The other and more powerful faction is the Military Industrial complex, whose barons always make billions from a well funded war.  They also tend to contribute generously to campaign coffers.



Yet, these very germs call themselves "Patriot".


----------



## QuickSilver (May 27, 2015)

Look who just threw his hat in with the other GOP hopefuls!!


----------



## BobF (May 27, 2015)

QuickSilver said:


> Not at all what happened Bob.   What happened was that Maliki set up the new Iraqi government and all but shut out the Sunnis making it primarily a Shiite run government..   THEN Maliki refused to grant immunity to our troops which would have allowed the US to stay longer..  We had no choice but to follow George Bushes negotiated timeline for troop withdrawal.  It was Maliki's decision we leave... not President Obama's.
> 
> ISIS is  Sunni... like Sadam Hussein.  They came into power because they felt the need for revenge against the overthrown dictator,  and because they were shut out of the Maliki regime..   This is the primary reason ISIS started.  In additional most of the middle class Sunni's who felt excluded suddenly preferred the Militants.. ie ISIS to the Shiite dominated Maliki government.
> 
> ...



*[url]http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Iraqi_Interim_Government*[/URL]


 The *Iraqi Interim Government* was created by the United States and its coalition allies as a *[url]http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Iraqi_Interim_Government*[/URL] to govern Iraq until the drafting of the new constitution following the National Assembly election conducted on January 30, 2005. The Iraqi Interim Government itself took the place of the Coalition Provisional Authority (and the Iraq Interim Governing Council) on June 28, 2004, and was replaced by the Iraqi Transitional Government on May 3, 2005.  


 The early beginnings and nothing from Maliki so far.


 …...............


 http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/History_of_Iraq_%282003%E2%80%9311%29


 The *history of Iraq from 2003 to 2011* is a period in Iraqi history characterized by a large American troop deployment in Iraqi territory, beginning with the U.S.-led invasion of the country in March 2003 which overthrew the Ba'ath Party government of Saddam Hussein and ending with the departure of US troops from the country in 2011 (though the Iraq War that commenced in 2003 continued and subsequently intensified during 2013). Troops for the invasion came primarily from the United States, the United Kingdom and Poland, but 29 other nations also provided some troops, and there were varying levels of assistance from Japan and other allied countries.
 It was a period of violence and political turmoil with strong foreign influence exerted on Iraqi politics. In April 2003, a military occupation was established and run by the Coalition Provisional Authority (CPA), which later appointed and granted limited powers to an Iraq Interim Governing Council. In June 2004, a caretaker government was established – the Iraqi Interim Government. Following parliamentary elections in January 2005, this administration was replaced in May by the Iraqi Transitional Government. *A year later, the Al Maliki I Government took office.*


 …........................


 As you can see above, Maliki was well after the government had been designed and voted on previously.


 ….........................


http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Coalition_Provisional_Authority


 The *Coalition Provisional Authority* (*CPA*; Arabic: سلطة الائتلاف المؤقتة‎) was established as a transitional government of Iraq following the invasion of the country on 19 March 2003 by the United States, United Kingdom, Australia and Poland, forming the Multinational Force (or 'the coalition') aiming to oust the government of Saddam Hussein. 


 …........................


http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Iraqi_Governing_Council


 The *Iraqi Governing Council* (*IGC*) was the provisional government of Iraq from July 13, 2003 to June 1, 2004. It was established by and served under the United States-led Coalition Provisional Authority (CPA). The IGC consisted of various Iraqi political and tribal leaders who were appointed by the CPA to provide advice and leadership of the country until the June 2004 transfer of sovereignty to the Iraqi Interim Government (which was replaced in May 2005 by the Iraqi Transitional Government, which was then replaced the following year by the first permanent government).
 The Council's ethnic and religious breakdown included 13 Shias, five Sunnis, five Kurds (also Sunnis), one Turkmen and an Assyrian. Three of its members were women.
 In September 2003, the Iraqi Governing Council gained regional recognition from the Arab League, which agreed to seat its representative in Iraq's chair at its meetings. On June 1, 2004, the Council dissolved after choosing member Ghazi Mashal Ajil al-Yawer as the president of the new Iraq interim government. Full sovereignty was transferred to the interim government (and the CPA dissolved) on June 28.
 ….................


http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Iraqi_Transitional_Government


 The *Iraqi Transitional Government* was the government of Iraq from May 3, 2005, when it replaced the Iraqi Interim Government, until May 20, 2006, when it was replaced by the first permanent government.  


 …..........................


http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Al_Maliki_I_Government


 The first *government of Iraq led by Nouri al-Maliki* took office on May 20, 2006[1] following approval by the members of the Iraqi National Assembly. This followed the general election in December 2005. The government succeeded the Iraqi Transitional Government which had continued in office in a caretaker capacity until the new government was formed and confirmed.  


 ….....................


 Finally Maliki does become the leader.    Until now he has been part of the hundreds that have taken turns in elections, writing drafts for the constitution, voting on portions and changes.


 Yes, Maliki did get elected, he worked on the new government design, he helped with the constitution, he was just one of hundreds that put into the design of the Iraq government.    It was not just him doing the job as some might want to say.


 He certainly did do what he could to shut out the Sunni, but mostly after he became the official leader.   Some of the Shiit religious ones from Iraq hid in Iran for most of the years the US was in the area.   After the new governments of Iran began to form they came out of hiding in Iran and attempted to change everything.


 You do know a lot, but not nearly as much as you think you do.   In this case you were close, but wrong again.


----------



## AZ Jim (May 27, 2015)

Thanks for the cut and pastes that I won't read but they are off the subject of my OP.  Please respond to only the original post.  Thank you...


----------



## Davey Jones (May 27, 2015)

They should be made to carry the black body bags off the plane at Dover AFB.


----------



## AZ Jim (May 27, 2015)

Exactly Davey.  Those cowards would puke.


----------



## BobF (May 27, 2015)

AZ Jim said:


> Thanks for the cut and pastes that I won't read but they are off the subject of my OP.  Please respond to only the original post.  Thank you...



Not sure who you are speaking too but if me, it is not for you to read anyway.   I am sure it was intended for your favorite far left lady friend as she has posted some big mistakes and this one deserved some comments.   Best to stick to facts and not try to create nonsense and lies.


----------



## AZ Jim (May 27, 2015)

BobF said:


> Not sure who you are speaking too but if me, it is not for you to read anyway.   I am sure it was intended for your favorite far left lady friend as she has posted some big mistakes and this one deserved some comments.   Best to stick to facts and not try to create nonsense and lies.



I posted earlier that this had drifted off my OP.  Go back up and read it.   If you have something you want to post about the original post do so but no more of these space wasting cut and pastes that do not pertain to my post.  If you want to post that material you cut and paste, start you own thread but stay out of mine unless you are on subject.


----------



## BobF (May 27, 2015)

AZ Jim said:


> I posted earlier that this had drifted off my OP.  Go back up and read it.   If you have something you want to post about the original post do so but no more of these space wasting cut and pastes that do not pertain to my post.  If you want to post that material you cut and paste, start you own thread but stay out of mine unless you are on subject.



Well, you may not like it but I am posting directly to a poster on your thread.   Have you published these new rules for all to see.   Nothing but what you want to see.   Something new to me and never heard it on any other forum before.   Might be pretty hard to enforce for self made rules.


----------



## AZ Jim (May 27, 2015)

BobF said:


> Well, you may not like it but I am posting directly to a poster on your thread.   Have you published these new rules for all to see.   Nothing but what you want to see.   Something new to me and never heard it on any other forum before.   Might be pretty hard to enforce for self made rules.



You never heard of highjacking a thread?  How long have you been online?  I am the original poster, you  can respond to my original post as many times as you wish, but not change the post to fit your desires.  If you want to do that as I said before, start your own thread.  I want my thread to be about the subject I posted, not what you want.


----------



## BobF (May 27, 2015)

AZ Jim said:


> You never heard of highjacking a thread?  How long have you been online?  I am the original poster, you  can respond to my original post as many times as you wish, but not change the post to fit your desires.  If you want to do that as I said before, start your own thread.  I want my thread to be about the subject I posted, not what you want.



Not highjacking any thread.   If anyone was then post to the lady I responded too.   Get your game straight at least.


----------



## AZ Jim (May 27, 2015)

I posted this thread on Memorial day.  It featured the politicians and celebrities who are eager to send others into wars but who themselves are draft dodgers.  Not all the Wikipedia opinions regarding Iraq.  For the last time please post on subject or be a jerk, your decision.  I assume you know how to originate a post of your own.


----------



## BobF (May 27, 2015)

AZ Jim said:


> I posted this thread on Memorial day.  It featured the politicians and celebrities who are eager to send others into wars but who themselves are draft dodgers.  Not all the Wikipedia opinions regarding Iraq.  For the last time please post on subject or be a jerk, your decision.  I assume you know how to originate a post of your own.



First off that is a partial list as you did not note any of the similar but far left folks.   Very selective and far from true for the entire Congress.

You have already called me a jerk, so what can I lose.   Still have not gone for any others that also post on your thread.   Must mean you really love me a lot but don't want it to show.


----------



## AZ Jim (May 27, 2015)

BobF said:


> First off that is a partial list as you did not note any of the similar but far left folks.   Very selective and far from true for the entire Congress.
> 
> You have already called me a jerk, so what can I lose.   Still have not gone for any others that also post on your thread.   Must mean you really love me a lot but don't want it to show.



If you notice I posted those who who regularily tout wars.  Many liberals did not serve too but how many are talking up wars?  As to your need to be loved, set a Teddy Bear.  I am through debating with you here.


----------



## BobF (May 27, 2015)

In today's government, not much about defending ourselves at all.   But go back a few years and who started the Vietnam wars?   Who started the Second world war even before being attacked by Italy or Germany and who started the Japanese war part of WWII.   I don't think any of them were conservatives, just far left liberals.   Now it was the UN that set up the Korean War which the US certainly did join.

What I am saying is your position is biased and therefore not truthful at all.


----------



## Shalimar (May 28, 2015)

Far left Americans on this forum? Where? Come to Canada if you want to see socialists. Lol. People here are moderate by our calculations. Sorry, Jim, not attempting to muddy the waters, but really??? No, I am not referencing Communists, although we have those too. Sheesh. Lol.


----------



## Warrigal (May 28, 2015)

I agree with Shalimar. From the Downunder vantage point there are no far left Americans. :grin:


----------



## Shalimar (May 28, 2015)

Hi, DW, do you have Communists Downunder, as we do in Canuckistan?


----------



## QuickSilver (May 28, 2015)

Dame Warrigal said:


> I agree with Shalimar. From the Downunder vantage point there are no far left Americans. :grin:



This is true... but there ARE a lot of far Right Americans that when the moderate left is contrasted against, seem FAR left.   In fact..  I'm not really sure what far left really is..  every liberal I know is moderate...including myself.


----------



## Ralphy1 (May 28, 2015)

Plenty of far out Americans, depending on your point of view...nthego:


----------



## QuickSilver (May 28, 2015)

Ralphy1 said:


> Plenty of far out Americans, depending on your point of view...nthego:




But that was mostly in the 60's


----------



## Warrigal (May 28, 2015)

Shalimar said:


> Hi, DW, do you have Communists Downunder, as we do in Canuckistan?


We have a lot of ex communists. The Communist Party of Australia collapsed when the tanks rolled into Hungary.

I voted for a communist once. His name was Jack Mundey and he was a leader in the Builders Labourers Federation and was instrumental in saving historical architecture in Sydney when the developers wanted to flatten the lot. He was a top bloke. I was voting for the man, not the party.


----------



## Ralphy1 (May 28, 2015)

Hmmm, and you probably thought that he was sexy, too...nthego:


----------

