Joe Biden update: Iraq one of Obama's 'great achievements'

latimesblogs.latimes.com...

Funny blog that was sent to me. Yes, it's just a blog and one person's take on the subject, but it's it a hoot to see Biden and Obama taking credit for anything good in Iraq, yet anything bad is Bush's fault.

Originally posted by jerico65
latimesblogs.latimes.com...

Obamas other great achievement is being a world class nit wit and making people think he's great.

reply to post by jerico65


Ooooo, don't forget losing the olymipcs in the first round.
Yeah, and here's your second line.

Originally posted by jerico65
Biden and Obama taking credit for anything good in Iraq, yet anything bad is Bush's fault.

Didn't Obama disapprove of the surge, that actually improved the situation over there?....

reply to post by jerico65



Give the Devil his do, he came up with the surge plans himself..... No wait that was Bush.... Okay he He defeated Enemies of America.... uh no wait that was the US miltary, Obama has apolgized to the world for America... He came up with the Surge for Afghan..l.. Damnit that was mckeirnan (sp)

Well wait was has Obama done....... oh yea he has continued he FAILED policys of Bush and has continued to spend money that America doesnt have... Al the way pissing on the middle class and not doing anything for anyone except his buddies... Screw Obama and the Government....

Well, it looks like everyone has this thread handled pretty well.

You forgot about his excellent cause of Peace, prior to being elected president, which led to his winning the Nobe.

Carry on.

reply to post by jerico65


Pretty nice to claim the rewards of the tough choices and determination of others. Had Obama and his ilk had there way, there would have been no surge, remember......that one they said wouldn't work and was a failure? Oh wait, were not supposed to remember that part.... all hail the great achievement.

reply to post by jerico65


Withdrawing troops from Iraq is the greatest achievement of that war in my opinion, so I actualy agree with him.

Originally posted by pavil
Pretty nice to claim the rewards of the tough choices and determination of others. Had Obama and his ilk had there way, there would have been no surge,

What is this about the surge? Why do conservatives insist on the surge? What exactly did the surge do? is Iraq stable now because of the surge? It seems to me sending more troops into a war that was a costly lie to start with doesnt change anything... other than to distract from that fact.

The reasons behind Iraq were false, it cost this nation thus far $700 billion, over 4,000 american soldiers and at current nearly $200 million a day. What did the surge do to change that fact?

One has to wonder what America is even doing in Iraq to begin with.

You've got a crumbling economy, you are trillions of dollars in debt, some US states cannot even afford to pay citizens their income tax returns. You have schools being closed by the dozens, senators attempting to block unemployment assistance for those in need, millions are losing their jobs, millions are losing their homes, thousands more are living in tent cities. Thousands of civilians have since been killed as well as nearly five thousand US troops.

Sooner or later you are going to have to decide what is more important. Iraq. Or the wellbeing of the United States of America. The longer you wait, the worse the situation in your country becomes.

reply to post by Southern Guardian

What is this about the surge? Why do conservatives insist on the surge? What exactly did the surge do?

From the very beginning, one of the major tactical errors in Iraq was the fact that the coalition was understaffed. This was largely Rumsfeld's decision and he must be held accountable. He thought we could win 'on the cheap'.

Understaffing meant that, once a city was captured, it could not continue to be held because the troops were needed to move to the next battle. As soon as they packed up, the insurgency moved right back in.

The surge provided the manpower necessary to hold areas that had been re-captured. Over time, this led to additional benefits such as training Iraqis to secure their own land. The surge was the reccommendation (and request, almost a plea) from the commanders on the front lines in Iraq. The Pentagon had different ideas. Bush made the right decision.

Obama was against the surge, had nothing to do with the war's success, and was all around wrong in his assessments and predictions. And Biden wanted to split Iraq into 3 sections, one for Sunni, one for Shia, and one for Kurds. He was also 100% wrong.

reply to post by Southern Guardian


SG, the surge gave us and more importantly the Iraqi's the time necessary to stabilize Iraq. The other important part of the surge was that it got the "buy-in" of the Sunni's, which was vital to the success. You can dismiss it, but the facts do tell that as an overall strategy, it has been a huge success. The only strategy the Democrats had at the time was to cut and run, regardless of the mess and chaos we would have left behind. You tell me which strategy would be better in our long term interest, a civil and religious war torn Iraq, or a semi-democratic Iraq?

Originally posted by mishigas
reply to post by Southern Guardian

 

What is this about the surge? Why do conservatives insist on the surge? What exactly did the surge do?

From the very beginning, one of the major tactical errors in Iraq was the fact that the coalition was understaffed. This was largely Rumsfeld's decision and he must be held accountable. He thought we could win 'on the cheap'.

Understaffing meant that, once a city was captured, it could not continue to be held because the troops were needed to move to the next battle. As soon as they packed up, the insurgency moved right back in.

The surge provided the manpower necessary to hold areas that had been re-captured. Over time, this led to additional benefits such as training Iraqis to secure their own land. The surge was the reccommendation (and request, almost a plea) from the commanders on the front lines in Iraq. The Pentagon had different ideas. Bush made the right decision.

Although I'm not a big Bush fan.

You're right.

If we compared the First Gulf war to remove Saddam from Kuwait the US fielded over 500.000 troops not to mention the Allies. Now to take and hold an entire country they used 1/3 of that manpower. The plan was flawed from the beginning IMO.

Rumsfeld's plan would have worked except for one thing. The Iraqi Army folded too fast. There was no time to consolidate the areas that were taken. In previous wars the follow on units would consolidate and hold the areas taken by combat forces. These follow on units were usually supply and service units manned by military personel. These days these supply and service units are civilian contractors. There is the problem with Rumsfeld's plan.

reply to post by JIMC5499


civilian contractors deaths don't count towards US statistical War dead.
Good point though.

Originally posted by pavil
reply to post by Southern Guardian

 

SG, the surge gave us and more importantly the Iraqi's the time necessary to stabilize Iraq. The other important part of the surge was that it got the "buy-in" of the Sunni's, which was vital to the success. You can dismiss it, but the facts do tell that as an overall strategy, it has been a huge success. The only strategy the Democrats had at the time was to cut and run, regardless of the mess and chaos we would have left behind. You tell me which strategy would be better in our long term interest, a civil and religious war torn Iraq, or a semi-democratic Iraq?

iraq is far from "stable", many of those who side with the puppet govt are targeted as traitors and will be blown up by bombings for years to come. Same with US troops, revenge will served cold.

Many US citizens would reject and fight against a govt installed by, lets say, chinese occupiers.. as well as targeting the traitors who side with the occupier against their fellow americans.

And any action based on lies that causes millions of innocent souls to suffer misery & death is far from a huge success.. it's an epic fail to humanity "made in the USA".

Speaking of "our long term interest", what exactly would that be? Slaughtering people, causing the misery of millions, and subjecting them to puppet rule.. all based on lies.. does all this justify the alleged interests of one nations elite? because you & I have no interests there, we will gain nothing from this GOP & DNC failure but massive debt. Neat huh?, they lie, kill, occupy, fail and profit massively.. we pay for it.

Originally posted by mishigas
reply to post by Southern Guardian

 

What is this about the surge? Why do conservatives insist on the surge? What exactly did the surge do?

From the very beginning, one of the major tactical errors in Iraq was the fact that the coalition was understaffed.

The invasion of Iraq was an error to begin with. There were no reasons to go into that country, no WMD's or evidence of such were found by weapon inspectors, Iraq was singled during the time that Israel, North Korea and Pakistan all held WMD's themselves. The reasons for war was a lie, and crediting the surge does not change this fact.

Understaffing meant that, once a city was captured, it could not continue to be held because the troops

Understaffing? The US had no business in Iraq in first place.

The surge provided the manpower necessary to hold areas that had been re-captured. Over time, this led to additional benefits such as training Iraqis to secure their own land.

www.worldtribune.com...

Iraqis are still for the most part not ready to secure their own land. After the surge the problems continue, the bombings continue, and despite the positive recent elections the nation is at large still unsercure.

The surge did little more than hold certain areas clear for the time being. The war itself in its entirety was a lie to begin with.

Obama was against the surge,

Just like he was against the Iraq war and our involved in occupying that nation. The iraq war was a blatant lie and its just astounding that people like you continue to deny.


[edit on 12-3-2010 by Southern Guardian]

reply to post by Southern Guardian


SG SG SG, Biden states that thanks to Obama everything is great in Iraq.

Now you are here saying Obama was against it.

Please post his voting record on the war.

Quit sidestepping the OP and bringing up arguments that I would use.

Of course being there is wrong. We cannot be the police in every frelling country in the world. Yes we need to convict and then hang every terrorist involved in any attack against the US.

Now, what are we doing again in Afghanistan? Oh yeah, that is where the Taliban are or the Al Queda or whatever big bad wolf we want to imagine.

Now that the Democrats are in power, "War is good"!

Originally posted by Southern Guardian
reply to post by jerico65

 

Withdrawing troops from Iraq is the greatest achievement of that war in my opinion, so I actualy agree with him.

Bush had already laid the groundwork for withdrawing the troops before he left office.

Obama was handed that nice little gift the first day he walked into office. All he had to do was read it and then give a speech detailing what Bush left for him.

I like to think that was what W left in the note that was laid on the desk of the Oval office. I imagine it went something like this.

Dear Barry,

Look in the top right hand drawer, I left you a little something that will enable you to keep atleast one of your campaign promises.

No thanks needed.

W.

SO he says. And how does public fact relate to Bidens opinion* its the facts that count, not opinions.