Random Politics & Religion #00

Hey according to Obama we left behind a "sovereign, stable and self-reliant" Iraq.

How was he suppose to know they would fall to ISIS in the next few years? I bet he didn't even find out until he read it in the newspaper.

Regardless all that money, all that work, all those lives spend bringing stability to the region were flushed down the toilet by the commander in chief. You think liberals would jump to at least take credit for destroying the opportunity, instead they just insist it be revised out of history.

So, military leaders said that the problems stemmed from, among other things, broken equipment and a sharp decline in training. In other words, they were poorly-equipped and poorly-trained, which is what I've been saying all along. Now, if only I can find a reason to believe Vic, Sparth, and Flavin above people who are military leaders that actually know what they're talking about.

Uh, no we didn't. The US army was created in 1789; that just barely eeks into the plural centuries, and a draft hasn't been in effect for all of US history; only during some phases.
And FFS, the current form of training techniques for the US military only really started in the past 50 years.

thank altana that has never stopped any of us before.

Gosh, looks like that global warming schtick is drying up huh? I mean it's gotta be if Obama's trying to tie it into the military. Instead of you know, real threats.

So, as the Times article stated, they were not poorly equipped. They were extremely well equipped at the beginning, and their units have suffered battle damage. If you are given a brand new shiny tank, and you let an anti-tank missile get shot into it, is that the supplier's fault?

No, but apparently there were maintenance issues plaguing them as well. Even if they had the best equipment, they clearly weren't trained enough.

Funny you leave out that the article goes on to say that the US spent 25 billion in training and equipment and that the Iraqi government bought their own equipment that was subsequently destroyed or lacked maint.


Says one retired lieutenant general, incase you think I'm just making ***up.


Hey, it's just what Sparthy said. That the Iraqis don't believe in their own government, regardless of US hurrah and training. But wait, there's more!


Hey look, it's that social issue that I mentioned that only further drives Iraqi soldiers to defect, abandon or give no ***. Just because he's Sunni, we can't have that competent guy leading forces. Nope, bring in the Shiite guy because he's pro-Maliki.

It almost sounds like the red v. blue nonsense some of you play in this thread! Except lives and a country are at stake. But wait, there's EVEN more!


Surprise, surprise because they don't believe in the country or what it stands for! Time to flee given a real fight because Iraqi is a political/religious shitshow where what Allah you follow matters more than driving crazed religious nutjobs from out of your county.

Because the *** Iraqi army wouldn't pay for it. Shall we wipe the *** and powder the bottoms of Baghdad while we're at it?

Iraqi government officials were more concerned about keeping power and demeaning Sunni/Kurdish members of their army by stacking loyal Shiite soldiers near Maliki and putting the mixed forces in areas where they'd inevitably be deprived equipment and maintenance which does a number on morale, if there was any to start.

If your CO doesn't give a ***, why should you? Patriotism? towards what? A government that antagonizes you and is corrupt? HA.

When ISIS showed up I too would have thrown down my guns and ran because my government obviously doesn't give a ***about me or my life. Why should I throw mine away for them?

It's not really new.
http://www.nap.edu/catalog/12914/national-security-implications-of-climate-change-for-us-naval-forces
http://www.defense.gov/pubs/2014_Quadrennial_Defense_Review.pdf
http://www.cna.org/reports/accelerating-risks
http://www.defense.gov/news/newsarticle.aspx?id=121237

I didn't say it was new, just that him vomiting it to the armed services was desperate.

Why? They've been running studies/analyses and planning on that topic for about a decade now.

Because the issue is a looser, as in no one cares about it. He's gotta try and keep the left's agenda going by actively tying it into something else that people politically prioritize like national security.

IE not only is global warming going to make the planet hot 100 years from now when you're not even going to be alive, but it's also going to make credible national security threats too (so pay attention to the agenda).

The military isn't exactly an organization known for its liberal tendencies?

My favorite part is in the comment section... blame israel!

I find it hard to take a website seriously with a name resembling publishers clearing house. tltr anyways

Where's Fone? He knows the deal.

Those look like pro-military biased sources.

but if you give them all your credit card numbers you might win a prize!

It'll be a clearing house all right...

I'm here. It's also my birthday !

our favorite ***poster turns 30! get out the booze, ***!

What Times article? If you are going to argue against the source articles, use, you know, the actual source articles and not another source article (that you failed to reference, go figure).

I'm already drinking this !

I would describe is as pretty spicy. Can definitely taste the old bay.

It's Flavin's birthday too?

If it is Happy Birthday Flavin.

was I close on the age at least?