posted
Whom here is still a fan of Obama after all the years that have gone by, and is still pumped up and energetic about his message of change and that he personifies such change? LOL
Posts: 7516 | From: Somewhere on Earth | Registered: Jan 2008
| IP: Logged |
posted
Im sure there are plenty of hapless blacks still in support of The Mulatto.
Posts: 8806 | From: The fear of his majesty had entered their hearts, they were powerless | Registered: Nov 2007
| IP: Logged |
-------------------- The Complete Picture of the Past tells Us what Not to Repeat Posts: 7516 | From: Somewhere on Earth | Registered: Jan 2008
| IP: Logged |
posted
I wonder what Sundjata thinks about him now? He thought Obama was going to be a great president.
Posts: 4254 | From: dasein | Registered: Jun 2009
| IP: Logged |
posted
BHO's career is puzzling. After Harvard where he was mentored by prominent law professor Lawrence Tribe, BHO went on to Chicago politics. On whose advice? Was there an ethnic factor in all this--both black and Jewish? Blacks for support and Jews for guidance and advice? But he got far in a short space of time, and now for "pay back time" only one group is cashing the cheque.
Posts: 5492 | Registered: Nov 2004
| IP: Logged |
posted
It seems that Obama's fans have gone very quiet. Interesting.
-------------------- The Complete Picture of the Past tells Us what Not to Repeat Posts: 7516 | From: Somewhere on Earth | Registered: Jan 2008
| IP: Logged |
posted
^^^ Oh they are around, Trust me. I had one in my last Class I took this Spring, plus my Prof. was obvioulsy an Obama fan although he never made it clear, and they were White, Imagine all the blacks who will rally behind this Half a Nigga Skelator this election. Obama used black folks to get into office and will do so again, White Liberals already support him and Mild Republicans too.
BHO is a Moderate Republican who caters to white(esp Jewish) Liberals and has no Backbone to stand up for Progessive issiues.
I honestly don't even care anymore, He has become a non factor as of recently and his Mundane "semi-patriotic" speeches bore me.
Also why do people keep calling this Half a Nigga long legged Skelator the first "Black" president. Obama is Half Black and has more in common with the Average white man than he does with black folks.
BHO should be called the first "Mixed Race" president.
Posts: 8806 | From: The fear of his majesty had entered their hearts, they were powerless | Registered: Nov 2007
| IP: Logged |
posted
Obama will get the nod again because he says he'll bring the troops home from Afghanistan, however slowly. (It's about time somebody realized there's no national security to be had in that country.) The Taliban will regain power eventually. Their only desire is to practice subjugating women and making the men parade around in ridiculous looking unkempt beards. This slow withdrawal satisfies the liberal element called democrats who thought he was going to do all he said he was up front, but didn't.
But this group detests republicans and will except any offering of change, however late, from Obama. It doesn't matter at this point that he didn't do everything/anything the white folks wanted him to. They see a closing of sorts of the endless quagmire in Afghanistan and Iraq.
It doesn't matter if black folks didn't get that mythical 40 acres and a mule from Obama.They keep on wishing and hoping because they know the Republicans have a tendency to ''look away'', and not necessarily to Dixie either (they do it 'up north"). The republicans say ''get a job.'' But the return comment is McDonalds doesn't pay much for skilled labor. Of course the republicans will say tough it out--I can't help it because you need help.
The Republicans don't have anything to offer either except to cater to a constituency of whom some are prejudiced concerning Obamacare and don't like helping poor people who have no recourse but government assistance of some kind, and will stilll say to those who are disadvantaged, live within your means.
But one thing all of you here need to know is if a republican gets elected what are you going to say then? Will you still be here in 2012 after the election talking about some sh.t you personally claim to know how to correct but remain agitated because you can't do jack sh.t about it, even if you do know how to correct it--without stepping on someone else's toes in the process that is.
Yup, I voted for Obama the last time and will do so in 2012--provided he doesn't renege on his promise to get all the troops home by then.
Posts: 2118 | From: midwest, USA | Registered: Aug 2007
| IP: Logged |
posted
Those hoping *all* troops will be brought home by 2012 are setting themselves up for another duping.
I don't have any false hope in the Republicans anymore than I do the Democrats. I've been making that clear for some time now. The two party system is bankrupt, but a single or a few individuals isn't going to rectify this problem. The working public at large have to get off their butts and take action. That's how you address the catch 22 situation brought on by the outmoded two party monopoly in the U.S.
-------------------- The Complete Picture of the Past tells Us what Not to Repeat Posts: 7516 | From: Somewhere on Earth | Registered: Jan 2008
| IP: Logged |
Yes that was all on the table as per Obama's platform. I didn't vote for him because of those items. But I will say they sounded reasonable.
I said on a couple of occasions before, I voted for Obama because I felt he couldn't screw it up any worse than the white boys and girls. Plain and simple.
better manage the economy?
By what or whose measuring stick? You read enough, or at least I think you do, to know the economy can't be controlled by an individual despite what he sets in motion. All one needs do is look at the administration's economists and the other side to know they can't agree all that much. The world's economy is straight up too big and intertwined and complex to even try to fix it. It has a life of its own.
The Explorer:
quote:''Those hoping *all* troops will be brought home by 2012 are setting themselves up for another duping.''
That may well be true but his followers will grab at any information that says he will do it.
I believe he will get re-elected by a slim margin because the republicans don't have anything going for them either except to say the democrats lie...just like them.
And even though I said this earlier: ''provided he doesn't renege on his promise to get all the troops home by then.'' this can be refined to mean all combat troops. Something on the order of Iraq where the troops aren't involved in hostile operations unless called upon to help the Iraqis.
But...since Obama has many military people telling him don't do it suddenly this is probably the main reason why he wavers.
Unrealistically speaking I do believe if the Pentagon would shut their mouths for a change and stop wishing for an idealistic outcome I believe Obama would actually do it all by 2012.
Posts: 2118 | From: midwest, USA | Registered: Aug 2007
| IP: Logged |
posted
"I felt he couldn't screw it up any worse than the white boys and girls."
Screw what up? I hope you are not referring to the economy. You said it has a life of its own.
Posts: 4254 | From: dasein | Registered: Jun 2009
| IP: Logged |
posted
When the man came into office everything was screwed up as far as some analysts say. And yes the economy has a life of its own from what I've read over the years. And Other than Obama not doing what some wanted him to do what is your specific complaint against him? Are you saying Obama screwed up the economy and that it wasn't on its when he took office?
If Obama brought all troops home this very day do you think the U.S.'s economy would improve to a significant degree?
Posts: 2118 | From: midwest, USA | Registered: Aug 2007
| IP: Logged |
posted
Thats not the point. Gramps is structuralist deterministic (only when it comes to Obama?) and doesn't believe in human agency, says the economy can't be controlled by an individual as it has a life of its own.
Posts: 4254 | From: dasein | Registered: Jun 2009
| IP: Logged |
quote:''Those hoping *all* troops will be brought home by 2012 are setting themselves up for another duping.''
That may well be true but his followers will grab at any information that says he will do it.
I believe he will get re-elected by a slim margin because the republicans don't have anything going for them either except to say the democrats lie...just like them.
And even though I said this earlier: ''provided he doesn't renege on his promise to get all the troops home by then.'' this can be refined to mean all combat troops. Something on the order of Iraq where the troops aren't involved in hostile operations unless called upon to help the Iraqis.
But...since Obama has many military people telling him don't do it suddenly this is probably the main reason why he wavers.
Unrealistically speaking I do believe if the Pentagon would shut their mouths for a change and stop wishing for an idealistic outcome I believe Obama would actually do it all by 2012.
Think of the political situation in America in terms of this analogy [and this is not specifically targeted you as a person]:
Suppose you were being kicked in the rear by two bullies taking turns, i.e. one bully kicks you, and then the next one kicks you; are you just going to endure this to and fro bullying for as long as the bullies can keep it up, or are you going to say to yourself at some point, that enough is enough, and take matters into your own hands to free yourself from the captivity?
In other words, are you going to let the bullying take its course indefinitely, or are you likely to intervene and free yourself from it? If the answer is the latter, then it is besides me, why people allow politicians kick them around to their hearts' content.
On the Iraq deal: Are you under the impression that the "hostilities" have come to an end?
BTW, it was Obama who ordered the surge of troops in Afghanistan in the first place. Is it then reasonable to expect this same person to "voluntarily" want to bring back the troops by 2011? The buck stops with Obama. He has the capacity to make it happen, if he so chooses.
Posts: 7516 | From: Somewhere on Earth | Registered: Jan 2008
| IP: Logged |
posted
Anguishofbeing says, ''says [I say]the economy can't be controlled by an individual as it has a life of its own.
You'd have a point if you are talking about a one world government. Is this what you are talking about? I don't think it will happen (if you are). People are too fractious. The white-shirt-and-tie boys screwed up the economy with the quick buck schemes according to the newspaper accounts. And after reading and trying to make sense of it I believe that to be true.
The Explorer:
''In other words, are you going to let the bullying take its course indefinitely, or are you likely to intervene and free yourself from it? If the answer is the latter, then it is besides me, why people allow politicians kick them around to their hearts' content.''
I'm sure there are groups in the U.S. who would love to stop the ''bullying.'' But aggravation for some isn't necessarily that for others.
''On the Iraq deal: Are you under the impression that the "hostilities" have come to an end?''
In terms of U.S. aggressive combat operations yes, as noted above. If you are referring to Iraqi aggression against each other then no.
''BTW, it was Obama who ordered the surge of troops in Afghanistan in the first place.
Yes he did. And I didn't agree with it. He trusted the generals and some politicians. This is what I meant when I said he should stop listening to the Pentagon because they don't have the answer either. He gave them the chance they thought they needed and I think he now realizes it's time to turn off the same misguided generals and politicians. I believe he understands this at this point. If he doesn't understand it and continues to listen to this group, especially (R)Senator McCain, then he will be a one termer and deservedly so.
Posts: 2118 | From: midwest, USA | Registered: Aug 2007
| IP: Logged |
posted
"says [I say]the economy can't be controlled by an individual as it has a life of its own."
Isn't that what you said? Come on Gramps, lets not play this game.
"You'd have a point if you are talking about a one world government. Is this what you are talking about? "
I'm talking about the US economy, who "screwed it" according to you? White-shirt-and-tie boys? SO why vote for Obama if he cant do anything?
Posts: 4254 | From: dasein | Registered: Jun 2009
| IP: Logged |
posted
Yes I said it that's why I inserted brackets to draw your attention to it. Nothing to hide here.
Posts: 2118 | From: midwest, USA | Registered: Aug 2007
| IP: Logged |
''On the Iraq deal: Are you under the impression that the "hostilities" have come to an end?''
In terms of U.S. aggressive combat operations yes, as noted above. If you are referring to Iraqi aggression against each other then no.
Then what do you make of this:
The Associated Press Posted : Tuesday Jun 14, 2011 7:29:03 EDT
BAGHDAD — The military says two American soldiers have been killed while conducting operations in southern Iraq.
Tuesday's statement didn't give details on the operations, saying only the two were killed Monday. They were not identified pending notification of next of kin.
The new deaths bring to 4,462 the number of American service members who have died in Iraq since the war began in 2003, according to an Associated Press count.
And it brings to eight the number of U.S. troops killed in June so far.
Shiite Muslim militias have stepped up attacks on U.S. forces with the approach of the year-end withdrawal of all American troops.Posts: 7516 | From: Somewhere on Earth | Registered: Jan 2008
| IP: Logged |
It is my understanding U.S. forces don't conduct combat operations as they once did unless called upon to assist Iraqi forces in need. You will note your article said there were no details on the deaths. I recall reading awhile back 2 soldiers were killed by an explosive device. They probably were on patrol, and I'm sure there are lots of those still taking place.
The end of your article also says Shiite militias are doing the killing. Does Muqtada al Sadr and his group ring a bell as being possibly responsible, according to the AP news.
Here's what may happen if the pace picks up against U.S. troops. The U.S. may resume some type of *offensive* against those groups simply because of the retaliatory factor. You also will recall Al Sadr had it out with U.S. troops a few years back until some type of agreement was reached because the fighting ended between Sadr and the U.S..
Anguishofbeing, aggressive combat operations isn't nebulous at all. It means what it says, to seek out and engage the opponent. In other words to kill him before he kills you.
Posts: 2118 | From: midwest, USA | Registered: Aug 2007
| IP: Logged |
It is my understanding U.S. forces don't conduct combat operations as they once did unless called upon to assist Iraqi forces in need. You will note your article said there were no details on the deaths. I recall reading awhile back 2 soldiers were killed by an explosive device. They probably were on patrol, and I'm sure there are lots of those still taking place.
You are just assuming, since like you said, the article doesn't specify the nature of the operation. However, the end of the article clues us in on what kind of operation it would have been. They were in all likelihood killed in their search and capture/kill missions when these killings happened.
quote:
The end of your article also says Shiite militias are doing the killing. Does Muqtada al Sadr and his group ring a bell as being possibly responsible, according to the AP news.
Indeed. The stepping up of Shiite attacks against US forces counters your claim about "U.S. aggressive combat operations" being over, and that the fighting would be just amongst the Iraqis themselves. I can't imagine Shiites attacking US armed forces, without the U.S. wanting to counteract it, can you? If you agree, then that would suggest that the U.S army is still engaged in "aggressive combat operations", wouldn't it.
Posts: 7516 | From: Somewhere on Earth | Registered: Jan 2008
| IP: Logged |
posted
It is nebulous in the sense that how it is defined in this context is not clear. According to you "aggressive combat operations" are over, yet the killing continues.
aggressive - occupying armed colonial forces
combat - killings
operations - job
How can it be over if defined as such?
Posts: 4254 | From: dasein | Registered: Jun 2009
| IP: Logged |
''You are just assuming, since like you said, the article doesn't specify the nature of the operation. However, the end of the article clues us in on what kind of operation it would have been. They were in all likelihood killed in their search and capture/kill missions when these killings happened.''
You tell me I'm assuming then you say ''in all likelihood.'' You're going to have to approach this from a different angle to rid yourself of your assumptions.
I said: The end of your article also says Shiite militias are doing the killing. Does Muqtada al Sadr and his group ring a bell as being possibly responsible, according to the AP news.
You responded with:
''Indeed. The stepping up of Shiite attacks against US forces counters your claim about "U.S. aggressive combat operations" being over, and that the fighting would be just amongst the Iraqis themselves.''
If aggressive combat operations aren't over according to you then why is the U.S. death toll lower than when agressive combat operations are in effect? Recall Anbar province and Fallujah from several years back.
Your posted article said nothing about 2 soldiers being killed while participating in aggressive combat operations. They 'probably' were on patrol. If you want to turn my agressive combat operations being over into an assumption that they aren't then feel free to do just that but be aware it won't make your assumptive and denial position fact until other evidence from authorities, Iraqi or otherwise, can present a clearer picture on the ground.
Today's local newspaper reiterated what Mr. Obama said a while back: combat operations in Iraq are over unless called upon to assist the Iraqis. It said nothing about why Shiites are killing U.S. soldiers other than they don't like them in the country. Sadr himself made the comment several years back.
Now having said that, Iraq is a combat *environment* for nearly all who live there, *particularly* for U.S. soldiers in the country.
''I can't imagine Shiites attacking US armed forces, without the U.S. wanting to counteract it, can you?''
Why is this an issue for you in a combat environment? This was addressed above in an earlier post. You're trying to use material against me when I've already addressed it above (in an anticipatory attitude). To paraphrase myself, yes the U.S. would take action against Sadr or anyone else if they are continually engaged. Yet this says nothing about your denial that combat operations are not over. They are. I have seen no evidence whatsoever of any aggressive combat operations fom U.S. troops. If you have this information in reserve you should bring it forth such that it will erase everything I've said thus far that it *is* over, that is, combat operations are over--until and when the Iraqis themselves need assistance. And this can take the form of warplanes, helicopters, drones, or anything else the Iraqis may have to call for.
Posts: 2118 | From: midwest, USA | Registered: Aug 2007
| IP: Logged |
''It is nebulous in the sense that how it is defined in this context is not clear. According to you "aggressive combat operations" are over, yet the killing continues.''
Yes the killing of U.S. troops continue because the U.S is still in the country Anguishofbeing, not because of combat operations in full swing.
aggressive - occupying armed colonial forces
combat - killings
operations - job
How can it be over if defined as such?
Those three items are a specific result of the U.S.'s occupation of Iraq. You will recall those three are being discussed in some form or other. To wit: they all are intertwined and can't operate without the other from an occupier aspect.
Posts: 2118 | From: midwest, USA | Registered: Aug 2007
| IP: Logged |
posted
In full swing? So you admit it is still going on but just not "in full swing"?
Look, enough of this round-robin semantic s--t you Americans like to indulge in. Aggressive combat operations are still going on, the Americans are the aggressors having invaded a country and now occupying it trying to force their rule (there's no sovereign Iraqi government) on the country. This will never happen so long as a base and troops are there. Nuff said.
Posts: 4254 | From: dasein | Registered: Jun 2009
| IP: Logged |
quote:''In full swing? So you admit it is still going on but just not ''in full swing''?
So this is how you operate when you can't reply to material presented to you? Do you even effin know about Fallujah, An Nasariya, Anbar province and others and how it relates to what I've been telling your Dasein non comprehending ass all along? Well of course you don't that's why you said this: ''Look, enough of this round-robin semantic s--t you Americans like to indulge in.''
''Aggressive combat operations are still going on
Prove it. President Obama said combat operations are done unless called upon to assist Iraqi forces. I told you an article in the newspaper from AP wire services mentioned the same thing. You still take issue with it. I don't. All that remains for you to do now is prove me wrong by producing an article that says combat operations never did cease in Iraq.
...and now this, all in the same paragraph mind you:
Americans are the aggressors having invaded a country and now occupying it trying to force their rule (there's no sovereign Iraqi government) on the country. This will never happen so long as a base and troops are there. Nuff said.''
Anguishofbeing... would you mind explaining that and how you think you can manage to get me to disagree with the truth? No, wait, don't bother.
Posts: 2118 | From: midwest, USA | Registered: Aug 2007
| IP: Logged |
You tell me I'm assuming then you say ''in all likelihood.'' You're going to have to approach this from a different angle to rid yourself of your assumptions.
But here are the differences between my post and your's:
You presented your claim as a fact. I presented mine as a deductive speculation; it was never meant to be a stated fact to begin with. You drew the conclusion that it was put forward as an established fact; that is yet another assumption on your part.
My speculation was based on information that was noted in the Associated Press piece posted, which states that Shiites stepped up their attack against U.S. forces. The logical conclusion of this info is that it is highly unlikely that the American soldiers would just stand around while being killed, and do nothing in return. Put 2 and 2 together, and the answer becomes obvious. So you see, while I was making an assumption, since I wasn't given the specific details of what led to the 2 guys being killed, the other information that was given, leaves little else to the imagination that the U.S. forces would still have to be engaged in "aggressive combat" operations.
You also said Iraqis would simply be fighting between themselves and not against Americans. The Associated Press piece debunks that claim.
quote: If aggressive combat operations aren't over according to you then why is the U.S. death toll lower than when agressive combat operations are in effect? Recall Anbar province and Fallujah from several years back.
So, you are saying that when the U.S. forces are undertaking aggressive combat operations on the scale of the Fallujah operation, only then would their actions constitute "aggressive combat operations"? By that token, smaller scale combat operations do not constitute "aggressive combat operations"?
You seem to be overlooking what the news article was saying, which is that the killings have spiked. In other words, after a brief period of relatively low casualties, the number of deaths spiked in June. So you are talking in relative terms; how that objectively determines which combat operation qualifies as "aggressive combat operations" and which doesn't, is steeped in mystery.
quote: Your posted article said nothing about 2 soldiers being killed while participating in aggressive combat operations.
Perhaps the following version of the same news, posted on the Washington Post website, is more forthcoming about the deaths of U.S. forces being "combat related" than the earlier one cited:
BAGHDAD — The U.S. military says two American troops have been killed in northern Iraq while conducting operations.
The military said in a statement that the service members were killed Sunday.
No further details were immediately available, and the names of the dead are being withheld pending notification of next of kin.
The deaths bring to 4,465 the number of American troops who have died in Iraq. That’s according to an Associated Press count.
Eleven American troops have died this month in combat related situations. The casualty figure is the highest number of combat related deaths since May 2009 when American forces were still operating freely in Iraqi cities.
Most of the deaths have happened in Baghdad and southern Iraq reflecting the increased threat of Shiite militias to departing U.S. forces.
Copyright 2011 The Associated Press. All rights reserved. This material may not be published, broadcast, rewritten or redistributed.Posts: 7516 | From: Somewhere on Earth | Registered: Jan 2008
| IP: Logged |
quote:Originally posted by Grumman: Well of course you don't that's why you said this:
No gramps, I said it because I'm not going to waste time with you being difficult, like you do with the holocau$t fairytale. You know you dont have an argument. You admit lots of patrols are still taking place, that is not engaging the opponent? Why are they patrolling? To distribute candies? What are they patrolling with? American flags?
Posts: 4254 | From: dasein | Registered: Jun 2009
| IP: Logged |
I did. It was based on Mr. Obama saying that combat operations have ceased unless the Iraqis themselves call for U.S. assistance. It was a factual statement. I stand by that. To date I see no evidence of combat operations taking place in Iraq. What I have seen and what anyone will continue to see is American deaths until they leave the country for good. Iraq is a combat environnemt. This also necessarily means troops have duties to perform in that combat environment. I see no evidence they are *deliberately engaging* with hostile intent. However, once they are attacked by whatever group the troops will protect themselves.
''I presented mine as a deductive speculation; it was never meant to be a stated fact to begin with. You drew the conclusion that it was put forward as an established fact; that is yet another assumption on your part. My speculation was based on information that was noted in the Associated Press piece posted, which states that Shiites stepped up their attack against U.S. forces. The logical conclusion of this info is that it is highly unlikely that the American soldiers would just stand around while being killed, and do nothing in return.''
Initially I think you presented it as deductive reasoning to dispell ''no combat operations by U.S. forces'' because Shiites were attacking U.S. forces. When a group is attacked then yes, aggressive combat operations will take place if they aren't overwhelmed by the enemy. I said this already on a couple occasions.
Hypothetically, if two troops were confronted by many Iraqis and were fired upon is it logical to assume those two troops, being outnumbered and probably outgunned, would take aggressive action against superior forces? Aggressive meaning actually moving forward directly in the face of superior numbers as a stated method of operational performance. Unless those two troops are suicidal, and it's possible, then no they wouldn't take aggressive action other than to defend themselves and hope help is forthcoming in a hurry.
The deduction to be made here is no, they wouldn't advance to engage the enemy. The telephone will undoubtedly be their answer.
I said: aggressive combat operations aren't over according to you then why is the U.S. death toll lower than when agressive combat operations are in effect? Recall Anbar province and Fallujah from several years back.
The Explorer:
''So, you are saying that when the U.S. forces are undertaking aggressive combat operations on the scale of the Fallujah operation, only then would their actions constitute "aggressive combat operations"? By that token, smaller scale combat operations do not constitute "aggressive combat operations"?
No I'm not saying that at all. A smaller operation can be aggressive. However what it does represent is the direct relationship in terms of combat deaths proportionally as it regards the size of the operation. But, that says nothing about why I can still maintain my position that combat operations have ceased in Iraq--presumably until further notice.
''You seem to be overlooking what the news article was saying, which is that the killings have spiked.''
Shiites killing U.S. troops says nothing about combat operations being over in Iraq. I will say though, if it continues at such a pace then you may see aggressive operations against Sadr or whomever.
''You also said Iraqis would simply be fighting between themselves and not against Americans. The Associated Press piece debunks that claim.''
Context will be recalled as Iraqi security forces fighting Iraqis if they can handle their combat situation by themselves. If they are outgunned and outnumbered then yes the U.S. will offer assistance. If so, then yes the aggressive combat operations are truthful. Not unil then however.
Posts: 2118 | From: midwest, USA | Registered: Aug 2007
| IP: Logged |
''No gramps, I said it because I'm not going to waste time with you being difficult, like you do with the holocau$t fairytale.''
That's highly debatable and you know it given the number of times we talked about that subject. I do believe a couple concessions were from me on that score but you never addressed what I asked you to (a question or two) and one of them was given your low number of less than a million does it or does it not constitute genocide. You never answered. So leave the Jews out of this.
'' You admit lots of patrols are still taking place, that is not engaging the opponent? Why are they patrolling? To distribute candies? What are they patrolling with? American flags?''
I've already told you Anguishofbeing that in a combat environment soldiers have duties to perform. Patrolling is one of them. Ain't no mystery here. What you can't understand or refuse to, is Obama has said no combat operations are taking place. This does not mean combat won't happen if troops are fired upon. Please be advised, yet again, there are no combat operations being performed in Iraq. Obama is the reason I can make this comment. An article or two critical of Obama have said as much. If it turns out Mr. Obama has lied and put the muzzle on all reporting in that country such that not one reporter will reveal the assumed lie fom Mr Obama that contradicts what I've read on more than one occasion since the comment was made about eight or nine months ago then I will concede this point. But know that until such time that Mr Obama's truth turns out to be false then I see no need to correct myself. Further, if you or The Explorer can show combat operations before we started this topic (within a topic) then I'll shut up. Can't do that until then.
Let me say something to you. Your last few responses have been cloudy. The reason may be that you really don't have an interest in this thereby rendering you incapacitated. Meaning the topic, lately, isn't whether the U.S. invaded Iraq, it's whether there are ongoing combat operations in Iraq.
Having said what I have, you and Explorer will note I didn't mention Navy Seals, CIA operatives, Delta Force, if it even exists today, or anything along those lines. In other words I don't have a clue what those groups may be up to; and no one else does either, except those who have a need to know. But it is my understanding combat operations in Iraq by U.S. forces, that is, the major ground troops and air assistance, are over--until called upon to assist Iraqi security forces in trouble, or their own.
Posts: 2118 | From: midwest, USA | Registered: Aug 2007
| IP: Logged |
I did. It was based on Mr. Obama saying that combat operations have ceased unless the Iraqis themselves call for U.S. assistance. It was a factual statement. I stand by that.
I'm not sure how a statement contradicted by facts on the ground is "factual". Are you saying it is factual because you say Obama said something along those lines?
quote: To date I see no evidence of combat operations taking place in Iraq. What I have seen and what anyone will continue to see is American deaths until they leave the country for good.
On contrary, you are simply choosing to ignore evidence that debunks you. I don't know how any sane person can say combat operations are over when the Shiites are stepping up their attacks against U.S forces and killing them.
quote: Iraq is a combat environnemt.
...where no combat is taking place. You sure make a lot of sense, Grumman.
quote: This also necessarily means troops have duties to perform in that combat environment. I see no evidence they are *deliberately engaging* with hostile intent. However, once they are attacked by whatever group the troops will protect themselves.
Occupying a sovereign country is not "deliberately engaging with hostile intent"? And even using your logic about "protecting themselves" should be thrown out the window using your logic, because in order for them to do that, they'd have to engage in "aggressive combat operations".
quote:
Initially I think you presented it as deductive reasoning to dispell ''no combat operations by U.S. forces'' because Shiites were attacking U.S. forces. When a group is attacked then yes, aggressive combat operations will take place if they aren't overwhelmed by the enemy. I said this already on a couple occasions.
As I said, you assumed that I was presenting my sentence as definite fact, when there was no apparent cause to draw that conclusion. Clearly in the above, you are forced to contradict yourself on the issue of "aggressive combat operations taking place". It simply doesn't make sense for Shiites to step up their attacks and killings of U.S. forces, only for the latter to simply do nothing and stand around like sitting ducks. Common sense instills that they would be attacking back to discourage further attacks. This can only primarily be done through "aggressive combat operations".
quote: Hypothetically, if two troops were confronted by many Iraqis and were fired upon is it logical to assume those two troops, being outnumbered and probably outgunned, would take aggressive action against superior forces?
This is a highly speculative question. It doesn't make sense for "many Iraqis" to want to do damage to just 2 soldiers.
You seem to also be misdirecting your attention. The info deserving more attention here, is that the U.S. "deaths" in "combat operations" during June of this year "went up". To dismiss this as a "non-combat" event, is to be seriously in denial of reality.
quote:
Context will be recalled as Iraqi security forces fighting Iraqis if they can handle their combat situation by themselves. If they are outgunned and outnumbered then yes the U.S. will offer assistance. If so, then yes the aggressive combat operations are truthful. Not unil then however.
Again, you seem to drifting off what you are being told, and speaking of hypotheticals. The news article is informing you that American soldiers are being killed by Iraqis. That doesn't support your claim about Iraqis only fighting amongst themselves and not the occupying American soldiers.
Posts: 7516 | From: Somewhere on Earth | Registered: Jan 2008
| IP: Logged |
posted
Oh please, give me a fuking break old man. I answered your last desperate straw man a long time ago and you know it. You shouldn't be so dishonest in your old age. The deaths at Auschwitz was not systematic but caused by conditions of war. It was not a "death camp" as stated by Gitty. Three years man! Three years!
As for your Orwellian phrase about "aggressive combat operations" and your big brother leader's pronouncements, its obvious youre fighting a losing battle (no pun ) there too. Why the hell are they patrolling? What are they patrolling with? Why the fuk are they even in the country?!Posts: 4254 | From: dasein | Registered: Jun 2009
| IP: Logged |
posted
''I'm not sure how a statement contradicted by facts on the ground is "factual". Are you saying it is factual because you say Obama said something along those lines?''
Yes I said that. It was stated by Mr Obama. If you refer to it again I will tell you the same thing.
''On contrary, you are simply choosing to ignore evidence that debunks you. I don't know how any sane person can say combat operations are over when the Shiites are stepping up their attacks against U.S forces and killing them.''
The Explorer you will recall context: Iraq is a combat zone. I've told you this already. Note your use of ''combat operations'' in your post above this one. Show me where the U.S is still undertaking combat operations as the instigating force after Mr. Obama has said combat operations in Iraq are done. Patrolling and getting attacked and defending oneself won't cut it then asking how can I say combat operations are over in Iraq when U.S troops have to defend themselves.
Me, from The Explorer:
Iraq is a combat environment.
''...where no combat is taking place. You sure make a lot of sense, Grumman.''
It's difficult to know why you are relieving yourself of context at this point. But the clues are mounting.
Me:
This also necessarily means troops have duties to perform in that combat environment. I see no evidence they are *deliberately engaging* with hostile intent. However, once they are attacked by whatever group the troops will protect themselves.''
Occupying a sovereign country is not "deliberately engaging with hostile intent"?
You couldn't resist your strawman could you. Have you been drinking with Anguishofbeing behind the scenes.
''And even using your logic about "protecting themselves" should be thrown out the window using your logic, because in order for them to do that, they'd have to engage in "aggressive combat operations".
...and just why wouldn't they engage with hostile intent if someone is shooting and trying to kill them. Are you serious about this?
''This is a highly speculative question. It doesn't make sense for "many Iraqis" to want to do damage to just 2 soldiers.''
If the objective is to kill U.S troops and the Iraqis have them outnumbered why wouldn't they do it? What sense would it make *not* to do it? Would they be conserving ammunition in hopes of killing 5 at some later date? You will recall Obama has said combat operations have stopped. Translation for you: the troops have patrols and duties in a combat environment. Your very article, both of them, can say nothing more than ''combat related.'' It doesn't say U.S. troops have undertaken aggressive combat operations; 'aggressive' has already been defined for you in context. I see a need to repeat myself but it ain't gonna happen any more.
''You seem to also be misdirecting your attention. The info deserving more attention here, is that the U.S. "deaths" in "combat operations" during June of this year "went up". To dismiss this as a "non-combat" event, is to be seriously in denial of reality.
You might want to refresh your memory; I do believe the article said ''combat related''. And pay more attention to what you write; now you got me saying 'non-combat.'
''Again, you seem to drifting off what you are being told, and speaking of hypotheticals. The news article is informing you that American soldiers are being killed by Iraqis. That doesn't support your claim about Iraqis only fighting amongst themselves and not the occupying American soldiers.''
...and here you have me saying the Iraqis are only fighting themselves. You should revisit the entire thread to see you are inserting different context. I can't help you on this. Go to bed The Explorer, get some rest.
Posts: 2118 | From: midwest, USA | Registered: Aug 2007
| IP: Logged |
I take it that you would have equally thought President Bush's "Mission Accomplished" banner was a reflection of facts. Obama also did say that he would bring all the troops home from Iraq and Afghanistan within months of taking office. I take it that you think that too is a fact. I see that goal posts for "aggressive combat operations" has been narrowed down to "if the American forces instigate it". Occupying a sovereign country is not 'instigation' enough to you? A foreign force occupying say, the U.S. against its will, would not constitute an 'instigation" for "combat operation"?
Your speculation about Iraqis wanting to kill just 2 U.S. soldiers is simply silly at best. Why on earth would insurgent movement want to kill just 2 personnel out of occupying forces running into the thousands? Do you not find that an odd reasoning?
You split hairs about the noting of "combat related" deaths in the news piece cited above. It simply means "deaths tied to combat", to put it another way. If not this, then exactly what do you think "combat related" means? How does one die a "combat related" death, without "combat" being involved? How does combat take place without "aggression", resulting in deaths, and hence, not becoming "aggressive combat", LOL.
quote:Originally posted by Grumman:
...and here you have me saying the Iraqis are only fighting themselves. You should revisit the entire thread to see you are inserting different context. I can't help you on this. Go to bed The Explorer, get some rest.
You are splitting hairs on what "combat related deaths" mean, and you are advising "me" to take a nap, ROFL? To revisit the exchange, as you suggested, this is what transpired:
I said:
''On the Iraq deal: Are you under the impression that the "hostilities" have come to an end?''
You responded:
In terms of U.S. aggressive combat operations yes, as noted above. If you are referring to Iraqi aggression against each other then no.
This implies that Iraqi killing U.S. soldiers doesn't constitute "aggressive combat operations", but that it only becomes one when it is an Iraqi on Iraqi aggression. Do you honestly think that anyone reasoning like this, should be taken seriously? Posts: 7516 | From: Somewhere on Earth | Registered: Jan 2008
| IP: Logged |
quote:I take it that you would have equally thought President Bush's "Mission Accomplished" banner was a reflection of facts.
In fact Obama's Orwellian pronouncements re Iraq are every bit the same as Bush's "mission accomplished" propaganda. Gramps is not that different from the pro-Bush hillbillies is trying to live with his cognitive dissonance. He has perfected it re the holocau$t fairytale now he does it with Obama and Iraq. Posts: 4254 | From: dasein | Registered: Jun 2009
| IP: Logged |
I was wondering when you were going to bring this up.
I take it that you would have equally thought President Bush's "Mission :Accomplished" banner was a reflection of facts..''
Not at all. When George landed on that aircraftcarrier and made that remark I said to my friend at work ''We'll see about that.'' Bush was thinking Iraq's army was in disarrray and not capable from that point of putting up resistance as a total fighting unit. From that point they weren't. Facts attest to that. However Bush and his cronies severely underestimated the resolve of the Iraqis banding together in warehouses and homes and discussing tactics and strategy. I didn't. I told my friend this stuff is just starting. When the ''first'' report of an IED came on the news I remarked ''Here we go.'' I saw the ''insurgency'' when Bush stepped onto the flight deck of that carrier and all the major news networks were proclaiming victory. Now before you take my ''I saw the insurgency'''' as a sort of no one else in the world knew what I knew dispell those thoughts if you have them.
''Obama also did say that he would bring all the troops home from Iraq and Afghanistan within months of taking office. I take it that you think that too is a fact.''
What, the fact he made the statement or the fact he didn't bring the troops home? Either way and for whatever reason it didn't work for him.
I see that goal posts for "aggressive combat operations" has been narrowed down to "if the American forces instigate it".
If the American forces instigate it then yes. Therefore there are no goal posts to be moved. Not now nor since this discussion started. It is my understanding U.S. forces haven't undertaken aggressive combat operations in Iraq since Mr. Obama stated they were over quite a few months back. To date I have seen no such evidence it has or is taking place as we speak. You should remember the U.S has said, according to the AP wireservices, the U.S. Will participate in aggressive combat operations if the Iraqis get in trouble and can't handle their operations, i.e., fighting other Iraqis. But, it is said, if the Iraqis call.
''Occupying a sovereign country is not 'instigation' enough to you? A foreign force occupying say, the U.S. against its will, would not constitute an 'instigation" for "combat operation"?'
Isn't that the precursor to what we are talking about The Explorer. Dam, brother.
''Your speculation about Iraqis wanting to kill just 2 U.S. soldiers is simply silly at best. Why on earth would insurgent movement want to kill just 2 personnel out of occupying forces running into the thousands? Do you not find that an odd reasoning?''
If you reinsert context you will be aware you are making a shambles of your own argument.
''You split hairs about the noting of "combat related" deaths in the news piece cited above. It simply means "deaths tied to combat", to put it another way. If not this, then exactly what do you think "combat related" means?''
Combat and combat related aren't the same. Combat is self explanatory: someone is shooting at you and you shoot back; house-to-house fighting, etc. Related can mean several things. Sitting in a fuel truck at a base a few miles from the ''hot zone'' to deliver fuel to a combat zone/hot zone when a sniper strikes from several hundred yards away: combat related; cleaning a weapon for combat operations later in the week when a mortar round strikes the compound you are sitting in and you die from your wounds: combat related. The list doesn't end here either. Two soldiers drown in a tank when it toppled into a canal; not combat related but in a combat zone.
''How does one die a "combat related" death, without "combat" being involved? How does combat take place without "aggression", resulting in deaths, and hence, not becoming "aggressive combat", LOL.''
See above
Explorer asked:
''On the Iraq deal: Are you under the impression that the "hostilities" have come to an end?''
I responded with:
In terms of U.S. aggressive combat operations yes, as noted above. If you are referring to Iraqi aggression against each other then no.
Explorer: ''This implies that Iraqi killing U.S. soldiers doesn't constitute "aggressive combat operations", but that it only becomes one when it is an Iraqi on Iraqi aggression. Do you honestly think that anyone reasoning like this, should be taken seriously?''
You're dragging an interpretation in here that can only mean you shouldn't be taken seriously. Why you are phrasing it that way is beyond me.
Advance notice: I'm leaving Friday morning and will be gone a week. And you have until then, Friday morning, to come up with yet another way of extricating yourself from the hole you're in.
Peace in your continuing struggle to understand.
Posts: 2118 | From: midwest, USA | Registered: Aug 2007
| IP: Logged |
''In fact Obama's Orwellian pronouncements re Iraq are every bit the same as Bush's "mission accomplished" propaganda. Gramps is not that different from the pro-Bush hillbillies is trying to live with his cognitive dissonance. He has perfected it re the holocau$t fairytale now he does it with Obama and Iraq.''
When are you going to admit you don't have the requisite skills to follow this argument?
You'd better head on back to Dasein land to find out how to do it.
Posts: 2118 | From: midwest, USA | Registered: Aug 2007
| IP: Logged |
posted
Grumman, I just could not stop laughing through your replies, because they just lack a modicum of rational thinking.
You said that your claim about "aggressive combat operations ending" is a fact, because Obama said so, yet you turn around and say that the same standard doesn't hold for Bush. This is obviously not objective thinking by any stretch. It is cult-like party-line thinking.
On the "aggressive combat" issue, you are even hilarious. Even if we took your qualification of this term seriously, which is to suggest that Americans just sit around like idiots when their colleagues are being killed left and right by Iraqi insurgents, that scenario would still qualify as an "aggressive combat" operation. It doesn't necessarily have to be up to U.S. soldiers to start every fire fight on the ground. Regardless of whether they like it or not, Iraqi counter-aggression is going drag them into "aggressive combat operation". If as you say, that "Sitting in a fuel truck at a base a few miles from the ''hot zone'' to deliver fuel to a combat zone/hot zone when a sniper strikes from several hundred yards away: combat related; cleaning a weapon for combat operations later in the week when a mortar round strikes the compound you are sitting in and you die from your wounds: combat related", etc, all only constituted "combat related" and not "aggressive combat operations", as if both terms are mutually exclusive, then one could simply say that they were killed in "Iraqi attacks", and drop the usage of "combat related" altogether. It makes no sense for something to be "combat related" when no "combat" supposedly had taken place. "Sitting around and cleaning a gun" is not a "combat", Grumman. BUT, an insurgent killing an occupying soldier "sitting and cleaning a gun for future use" is "combat related", as it involves "combat", even if the "aggression" comes from the insurgents' side...and as for "aggression", that part is pretty self explanatory, as it would pertain to "aggression" of the attackers/insurgents in the presented scenario. However, any "retaliatory" action by the occupying soldiers thereof, too would constitute "aggressive combat operation", because then they would have to use "aggression" to combat their adversaries.
Basically, you're insinuating that American soldiers just die in Iraqi attacks and they do nothing about it. How realistic is that?...for any "retaliatory" attack by American soldiers would have to come from an "aggressive" angle. It doesn't matter who "instigates" it [as if occupying someones' land against their will is not instigation enough], when there is fighting going on, both parties will become "combatants" and both will be drawn to "aggression"...unless one of the parties just decides to be a lifeless punching bag, and adopts a non-aggressive policy, LOL. It simply doesn't make any sense, Grumman, for a "combat related" situation in armed conflict to be absent of "combat", and like wise, for "combat" to be devoid of "aggression". It is not that I'm struggling to understand, it is just that you simply have not presented yourself adequately in upholding the objectivity of your claim.
Posts: 7516 | From: Somewhere on Earth | Registered: Jan 2008
| IP: Logged |
posted
Starting with your second sentence and continuing thereafter you've spun your counter argument so far away from what I've presented that I've come to the conclusion it isn't worth addressing. Your entire response is loaded with mischaracterizations, a logical fallacy and downright pulverization of the printed word. I ain't never seen no stuff like this. After reading your last series of analyses and your unique way of working it to suit your explanation and then telling me this is how it is is simply too much.
Congratulations, you win your type of argument.
Posts: 2118 | From: midwest, USA | Registered: Aug 2007
| IP: Logged |
posted
Thanks but you can cop-out openly, you know, without all that beating the bush. None of that discharge holds water, as evidenced by the fact that you have been unable to substantiate yourself with specifics and how my observations conform to your accusations. Conventionally, intelligent people demonstrate their point through hard substantiation and specifying what they are supposedly contending, rather than emotional accusations. You can take a cue from how I confronted your claims. On that note, I accept your white flag gesture.
-------------------- The Complete Picture of the Past tells Us what Not to Repeat Posts: 7516 | From: Somewhere on Earth | Registered: Jan 2008
| IP: Logged |
posted
What is "your way", other than waving the white flag as you had done above?
-------------------- The Complete Picture of the Past tells Us what Not to Repeat Posts: 7516 | From: Somewhere on Earth | Registered: Jan 2008
| IP: Logged |
UBBFriend: Email this page to someone!
![[Big Grin]](biggrin.gif)
![[Eek!]](eek.gif)
![[Wink]](wink.gif)
Printer-friendly view of this topic