President Obama's Approved Raid on ISIS was Successful
- Thread starter SeaBreeze
- Start date
QuickSilver
SF VIP
- Location
- Midwest
So are you saying that Bush actually got in a fighter plane and flew missions in Iraq in 2003?
Here's his ACTUAL record... Never in combat... Might have learned to fly a plane... Details of his end of military service very unclear..
[FONT=Times New Roman,Times,serif]May 28, 1968: Bush enlists as an Airman Basic in the 147th Fighter-Interceptor Group, Ellington Air Force Base, Houston, and is selected to attend pilot training. [/FONT]
[FONT=Times New Roman,Times,serif]July 12, 1968: A three-member board of officers decides that Bush should get a direct commission as a second lieutenant after competing airman's basic training. [/FONT]
[FONT=Times New Roman,Times,serif]July 14 to Aug. 25, 1968: Bush attends six weeks of basic training at Lackland Air Force Base, Texas. [/FONT]
[FONT=Times New Roman,Times,serif]Sept. 4, 1968: Bush is commissioned a second lieutenant and takes an 8-week leave to work on a Senate campaign in Florida. [/FONT]
[FONT=Times New Roman,Times,serif]Nov. 25, 1968 to Nov. 28, 1969: Bush attends and graduates from flight school at Moody Air Force Base, Georgia. (UTP Course #P-V4A-A Moody AFB, Ga. 53 weeks November 1969)[/FONT]
[FONT=Times New Roman,Times,serif]January 1,1970 147th changes from doing Alerts to training F-102 pilots. [/FONT] [FONT=Times New Roman,Times,serif]December 1969 to June 27, 1970: Bush trains full-time to be an F-102 pilot at Ellington Air Force Base. [/FONT]
[FONT=Times New Roman,Times,serif]Febuary 1970 Bush attends Preint Pilot Training (T-33 ANG112501 5 weeks ) [/FONT]
[FONT=Times New Roman,Times,serif]June 1970 his records are not clear his computer records show RGRAD NAV TNG but his discharge shows F102 Intcp Pilot Training (F102 ANG1125D 16 weeks).
His Military Biography shows: Professional Military Education: Basic Military Training, Undergraduate Pilot Training and nothing else.
http://bushwatch.tripod.com/LiesAboutBush/id4.html[/FONT]
QuickSilver
SF VIP
- Location
- Midwest
QuickSilver
SF VIP
- Location
- Midwest
Yeah... none can seem to get the story straight.. Perhaps Carl Rove should offer a "Republican talking Points 101" refresher course.
QuickSilver
SF VIP
- Location
- Midwest
And there may be up to thirty candidates soon to explain their position...
OMG.... I simply cannot wait!..... Can you imagine the Primary Debates? What could ever go wrong? What a circus
A bunch of empty air headed comments made here. And Republican candidates fumbling the entire Iraq thing? Not sure what you folks are talking about. Which Iraq event for one question? Most recent was the US leaving Iraq and that was Obama. Now Iran is in Iraq and they too are a big problem these days.
QuickSilver
SF VIP
- Location
- Midwest
Oh bob... Name calling AGAIN? Fact is .. you make it SOOOOO easy.. Actually it was President Bush that set the timeline for withdrawal.. NOT Obama, who was bound by this agreement and held to it by the Iraqi government. Is this just one of those pesky facts you keep yammering about? lol!
http://mediamatters.org/research/2010/06/27/memo-to-media-bush-set-a-timetable-for-withdraw/166835
You can't bring yourself to admit that Republicans screwed this entire thing up from start to finish... NOW they want to re-write history. They also expect Americans to give them another shot at the Middle East? Fat chance.
Isn't it true that the Iraqi government wanted us out of there, and there was no possibility of reaching any kind of agreement with them for our troops to stay anyway? I think those in government and America as a whole, will be much better off if we stop invading countries, acting like we own them and want to rule them ...while the needs of the citizens in our own country go ignored. Maybe if we stopped our high-horse attitude of dominating other countries, there wouldn't be so many people in the world who hate us and want to see us destroyed.
Warrigal
SF VIP
- Location
- Sydney, Australia
Hind sight is a wonderful thing and useless to correct past mistakes but we could use it to make better decisions in the here and now.
Can anyone say that invading Iraq with a plan to topple Saddam Hussein and introduce democracy was a good idea? It seems to have led to the destabilisation, not only of Iraq, but most of the Arab world.
First the Sunni insurrection in Iraq, then the Muslim Brotherhood in Egypt and now IS wherever it chooses. Al Qaeda in comparison now seems like small beer. We seem to have thrown petrol on a bonfire and set off a full scale bush fire.
Can anyone say that invading Iraq with a plan to topple Saddam Hussein and introduce democracy was a good idea? It seems to have led to the destabilisation, not only of Iraq, but most of the Arab world.
First the Sunni insurrection in Iraq, then the Muslim Brotherhood in Egypt and now IS wherever it chooses. Al Qaeda in comparison now seems like small beer. We seem to have thrown petrol on a bonfire and set off a full scale bush fire.
QuickSilver
SF VIP
- Location
- Midwest
From out of memory, I believe that the main sticking point was that the Iraqi government refused to grant our troops immuninty
http://www.nbcnews.com/id/44998833/...raq-pm-immunity-issue-scuttled-us-troop-deal/
Warrigal
SF VIP
- Location
- Sydney, Australia
After Abu Grahib, who can blame them?
I hope the US troops operating on our soil aren't being given carte blanche to do whatever they like with impunity, but I really don't know what the conditions of the treaty actually are. I do know that both Japan and the Philippines in the past have had trouble getting justice when US troops have raped local civilian women. Men have been smartly repatriated to avoid an embarrassing trial.
I hope the US troops operating on our soil aren't being given carte blanche to do whatever they like with impunity, but I really don't know what the conditions of the treaty actually are. I do know that both Japan and the Philippines in the past have had trouble getting justice when US troops have raped local civilian women. Men have been smartly repatriated to avoid an embarrassing trial.
We, happens to be many countries and with UN agreement for Iraq with Bush I and a second entry with the encouragement of a English General to just return as waiting for the UN to do anything was going to be too long and much dangerous. Many of those invasions of other areas were done in response to UN requests to help hold down the cruelty and hateful ways of some countries over their own people or neighboring countries. The US was not just wandering around and trying to destroy other countries as implied.
Copy from an older post:
An English General that totally dislikes G Bush said the extension of the Iraq war was legitimate after 10 years of Saddam's defiance of the UN and the surrender terms.
http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/worldnews/1561891/Gen-Sir-Mike-Jackson-attacks-US-over-Iraq.html
Sir Mike says he satisfied himself on the legality of invading Iraq by careful study of the relevant UN Security Council resolutions and concluded that action was "legitimate under international law without a 'second' resolution.
Don M.
SF VIP
- Location
- central Missouri
My Feelings Exactly! I don't know when our government decided to be the world's policeman, but that decision has brought nothing but grief to the U.S. The ONLY one's who have profited from this attitude are our Arms Industries. Eisenhower warned about the Military/Industrial Complex many years ago, but few in Washington seem to have paid attention to his words. By sticking our nose into every foreign conflict, our government has made this nation the Prime Target for every lunatic out there. A far better approach, IMO, would be to heed Teddy Roosevelt's words about "Speak Softly, but Carry a Big Stick". Unless directly threatened, we should let these whacko nations sort out their own problems...while making it clear that if we are attacked, we will come down on them multiple times harder than what they inflict on us.
History will show that deposing Saddam Hussein will prove to be one of the biggest mistakes our government has made in many years. Sure, he was a despotic dictator, but he kept the centuries old conflict between the Sunni and Shiite factions from exploding into the mess we see today. When they got out of hand, he used the only language they understand...he "eliminated" them. By removing him, we opened the door wide open to the mess we see today in the Middle East...and the threat these radicals pose to the rest of the world.
Warrigal
SF VIP
- Location
- Sydney, Australia
Bobf said:
I get the impression that the US can usually engineer a UN request when it wants one, and when it can't it finds some other rationalisation.
History has shown that Australia entered the war in Vietnam at the request of the Vietnamese government but that request was made at the request of the Australian government. Convoluted, isn't it?
Well said Don, I completely agree.
QuickSilver
SF VIP
- Location
- Midwest
Where have you been? We do not depend very much on Middle Eastern oil any longer. We are pretty much producing enough on our own and what we do import if primarily from Canada and South America. IT's not a question of oil, but a matter of the vast amount of money the Military industrial complex makes from war.
Our first entry into the Iraq mess was at the request of the UN to member countries. The second entry into Iraq was as I posted yesterday, the result of the Engliish General that help make the decision to return to Irag and end Saddam's nasy ways. The Iraq and area problems were started by Iraq and ended by invitation from the UN and the continued efforts many years later. I don't remember any UN objection to the second efforts. The military did allow the Iraq people to redesign their government and allow them to actually have some voice in how it was running. The military did start to return to their home countries and then Iran started to mess with the new government. The various countries then should have stayed and made sure the Iranian meddlers were kept at bay while the Iraq countrymen learned to run a democratic style government rather than fall back into the dictator, from Iran, style of government.
Did the UN authorized new government give the people of Iraq a proper government of their choice? Yes. Should the forces have stayed a while longer? Yes. Like the forces stayed in Europe for long enough times for the people to learn to live with their new democracies and get away from the constant changing of dictators as they had done prior to WWII. UN requested the military of several countries to help Iraq do its thing. That was good. But we who help Iraq gain some freedom ideas and practice, did not stay long enough for the countries to develop this sharing of responsibility among themselves. All this dependency on religion and variations of religion has so far ended the ability of peoples to live together and share responsibilities. Today we have one of the worst of all the religious variations trying to expand power and in doing so have destroyed even the smallest of peoples freedoms. Hardly anything the UN had envisioned many years back when so much effort was being put into peaceful efforts to live together.