You guys are certifiably nuts. No we were not winning over there.


What were we winning?

It cost us trillions for NOTHING,! That's revisionist.

We were winning over there? Give me a break and put down the crack pipe.

(01-20-2017 07:09 PM)Machiavelli Wrote:  You guys are certifiably nuts. No we were not winning over there.


What were we winning?

It cost us trillions for NOTHING,! That's revisionist.

We were winning over there? Give me a break and put down the crack pipe.

We won at the goal of some to start a forever war.

Mach and bOnds, please tell me more about your first hand account of the war...

I'll tell you how I define winning...
when we go from having 25 mortar attacks in one week to about 1.
When we go from losing 10 of my buddies in the first 4 months of my deployment to losing 2 the last 5, that's how I define winning.
When we go from engaging the enemy every single day, to meeting with elderly leaders and having dinner plates brought to us... that's how I define winning.

Y'all can go ahead and criticize the war in Iraq... because you have a first hand account of it and you know what was going on... from your own tv.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

You beat me to it. I was still laughing from their posts.

(01-20-2017 06:30 PM)b0ndsj0ns Wrote:  

(01-20-2017 06:25 PM)49RFootballNow Wrote:  

(01-20-2017 06:19 PM)b0ndsj0ns Wrote:  

(01-20-2017 06:10 PM)usmbacker Wrote:  Mattis wanted to bring the pain to Iran for being responsible for the killing of American soldiers. Well, the Coward-in-Chief wouldn't let him. Have a feeling he won't be stopped next time.

There we go lets start more wars in the middle east, because that's working out so well right now.

The difference is now we have a President interested in finishing wars in the only way possible, total victory. He has a SecDef that believes in that philosophy.

And how do you propose to win total victory in our wars in the middle east?

I'll defer to General Mattis

(01-20-2017 07:27 PM)UTSAMarineVet09 Wrote:  Mach and bOnds, please tell me more about your first hand account of the war...

I'll tell you how I define winning...
when we go from having 25 mortar attacks in one week to about 1.
When we go from losing 10 of my buddies in the first 4 months of my deployment to losing 2 the last 5, that's how I define winning.
When we go from engaging the enemy every single day, to meeting with elderly leaders and having dinner plates brought to us... that's how I define winning.

Y'all can go ahead and criticize the war in Iraq... because you have a first hand account of it and you know what was going on... from your own tv.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

I'm not gonna give you the patronizing "I thank you for your service" speech, because I think it rings hollow most of the time. You did something that deserves respect and many times is not given. All of what you described is winning on the micro level, but do you believe we were close to winning over the hearts and minds enough that they could have sustained themselves as a free country without us being there?

I'm not gonna give you the patronizing "I thank you for your service" speech, because I think it rings hollow most of the time. You did something that deserves respect and many times is not given. All of what you described is winning on the micro level, but do you believe we were close to winning over the hearts and minds enough that they could have sustained themselves as a free country without us being there?
[/quote]


Exactly why Isis was born. You're last sentence spoke for itself. We had no business leaving when we did. Oblunder owned the fiasco afterward because he announced we were leaving and the date we were leaving. Iraq was not ready, but thanks to your dear leader Iraq was left to fend for themselves.

C'mon man, you're smarter than this. I hope.

(01-20-2017 08:06 PM)olliebaba Wrote:  I'm not gonna give you the patronizing "I thank you for your service" speech, because I think it rings hollow most of the time. You did something that deserves respect and many times is not given. All of what you described is winning on the micro level, but do you believe we were close to winning over the hearts and minds enough that they could have sustained themselves as a free country without us being there?

Exactly why Isis was born. You're last sentence spoke for itself. We had no business leaving when we did. Oblunder owned the fiasco afterward because he announced we were leaving and the date we were leaving. Iraq was not ready, but thanks to your dear leader Iraq was left to fend for themselves.

C'mon man, you're smarter than this. I hope.
[/quote]

When would we have ever been able to leave? Seriously how many years would it have taken to have them ready?

Who knows, but we're still in Germany, still in So. Korea, still in most parts of Europe, etc. and we haven't had to shoot anyone there anymore. Maybe that would have been the next step in Iraq with Iraqy forces taking care of their defense.

Maybe if I explain it to you like this you'll get it. Let's say you have a whole bunch of ants and they're dining on a leftover pizza and you kill those but fail to get all of them that are just waiting on something else to come along. As soon as you get rid of the pizza you don't fumigate your house. The next morning the other ants come out of their hiding places and start looking for more chow. That's what happened in Iraq, we didn't fumigate, we left the bad guys to come out of their hiding places searching for pizza. There.

Iraqy forces than a post before admonishing someone over "being smart".

Irony?

I tells ya. That pizza ant story should be in college text books. Grade A man.

Please tell me more about the Iraq war... Mach.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

(01-20-2017 06:38 PM)b0ndsj0ns Wrote:  

(01-20-2017 06:34 PM)49RFootballNow Wrote:  

(01-20-2017 06:30 PM)b0ndsj0ns Wrote:  

(01-20-2017 06:25 PM)49RFootballNow Wrote:  

(01-20-2017 06:19 PM)b0ndsj0ns Wrote:  There we go lets start more wars in the middle east, because that's working out so well right now.

The difference is now we have a President interested in finishing wars in the only way possible, total victory. He has a SecDef that believes in that philosophy.

And how do you propose to win total victory in our wars in the middle east?

I'd settle for the destruction of Iran's nuclear program through strategic air strikes.

You backed off total victory pretty quick

What is total victory? We close our borders, destroy their nukes, and they are no threat.

Sent from my SCH-I535 using Tapatalk

(01-20-2017 06:49 PM)b0ndsj0ns Wrote:  

(01-20-2017 06:42 PM)usmbacker Wrote:  

(01-20-2017 06:19 PM)b0ndsj0ns Wrote:  

(01-20-2017 06:10 PM)usmbacker Wrote:  Mattis wanted to bring the pain to Iran for being responsible for the killing of American soldiers. Well, the Coward-in-Chief wouldn't let him. Have a feeling he won't be stopped next time.

There we go lets start more wars in the middle east, because that's working out so well right now.

Yea, Barry's red lines really worked so well.

About as good as W's "Mission Accomplished" banner. If the goal is to just overthrow a dictator then sure we can do that anytime we want, but every time we do it things just get worse over there. Nah what am I talking about keep bombing them to the stone age and kicking out dictators!!!

I think most will agree. You sound like Trump

Sent from my SCH-I535 using Tapatalk