Welcome to City-Data.com Forum!
U.S. CitiesCity-Data Forum Index
Go Back   City-Data Forum > General Forums > Politics and Other Controversies
 [Register]
Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
View detailed profile (Advanced) or search
site with Google Custom Search

Search Forums  (Advanced)
Reply Start New Thread
 
Old 03-06-2012, 08:58 AM
 
Location: South Carolina
8,145 posts, read 6,531,599 times
Reputation: 1754

Advertisements

Boy all means Roy lets give the military more money.
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message

 
Old 03-06-2012, 09:11 AM
 
Location: Wasilla, Alaska
17,823 posts, read 23,452,578 times
Reputation: 6541
Quote:
Originally Posted by roysoldboy View Post
He may not be but if he isn't it is hard to find him saying much of anything that indicates that. Oh yes, he bragged on his Seal team for killing bin Laden but about that same time he went after a group of Seals for bloodying the nose of a Muslim terrorist.

He has done so much to discredit so many of our military people at various times that someone has to wonder about how much he, as a non-server in the military really likes them.

Anti-Military Commander In Chief – Patriot Update
Of course Obama is anti-military. Just look at the casualty list. Obama has gotten more military personnel killed in Afghanistan during his first two years as President, than all the casualties combined during the eight years Bush was President. Obama is deliberately trying to get as many in the military killed as possible.

This is a common liberal tactic that has been employed in every conflict since Vietnam. Clinton also employed the same strategy to get as many in the military killed as possible. Liberal freaks have always had nothing but utter contempt for the military.
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 03-06-2012, 09:21 AM
 
Location: Long Island, NY
19,792 posts, read 13,948,900 times
Reputation: 5661
Quote:
Originally Posted by Glitch View Post
Of course Obama is anti-military. Just look at the casualty list. Obama has gotten more military personnel killed in Afghanistan during his first two years as President, than all the casualties combined during the eight years Bush was President. Obama is deliberately trying to get as many in the military killed as possible.

This is a common liberal tactic that has been employed in every conflict since Vietnam. Clinton also employed the same strategy to get as many in the military killed as possible. Liberal freaks have always had nothing but utter contempt for the military.
What you conveniently omit is how many have not been killed in Iraq under Obama.

Source: iCasualties: Operation Iraqi Freedom and Operation Enduring Freedom Casualties

Year US UK Other Total
2003 486 53 41 580
2004 849 22 35 906
2005 846 23 28 897
2006 823 29 21 873
2007 904 47 10 961
2008 314 4 4 322
2009 149 1 0 150
2010 60 0 0 60
2011 54 0 0 54
2012 1 0 0 1
Total 4486 179 139 4804


To suggest that the President is intentionally trying to have military personnel killed is not only false but beyond repulsive.
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 03-06-2012, 09:30 AM
 
Location: Texas
38,859 posts, read 25,538,911 times
Reputation: 24780
Quote:
Originally Posted by Glitch View Post
Of course Obama is anti-military. Just look at the casualty list. Obama has gotten more military personnel killed in Afghanistan during his first two years as President, than all the casualties combined during the eight years Bush was President. Obama is deliberately trying to get as many in the military killed as possible.

This is a common liberal tactic that has been employed in every conflict since Vietnam. Clinton also employed the same strategy to get as many in the military killed as possible. Liberal freaks have always had nothing but utter contempt for the military.

Your post is sick.

Seek help.
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 03-06-2012, 09:40 AM
 
46,955 posts, read 25,990,037 times
Reputation: 29443
Quote:
Originally Posted by roysoldboy View Post
In the last three years the Chinese have not backed down on military spending and I am sure that once we back off as much as our DOD has called for this next year they may well go past us in military ability.
I am equally sure you can't produce numbers to back that up.
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 03-06-2012, 09:44 AM
 
Location: Long Island, NY
19,792 posts, read 13,948,900 times
Reputation: 5661
Quote:
Originally Posted by oysoldboy
In the last three years the Chinese have not backed down on military spending and I am sure that once we back off as much as our DOD has called for this next year they may well go past us in military ability.
So?

The U.S. still outspends all other nations combined.
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 03-06-2012, 09:44 AM
 
Location: Metro-Detroit area
4,050 posts, read 3,959,677 times
Reputation: 2107
What more can I expect from the o.p. who would use a "birther" as his source of objective information.
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 03-06-2012, 09:49 AM
 
7,214 posts, read 9,394,916 times
Reputation: 7803
It's never enough for these neo-cons. We need to have one nuke to kill every single person on the planet, along with enough ships to blanket the entire ocean. Further, we need to have fighter planes that are capable of going into outer space in order to fend off the impending Martian invasion which Barack Obama is trying to cover up!
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 03-06-2012, 09:54 AM
 
Location: Wasilla, Alaska
17,823 posts, read 23,452,578 times
Reputation: 6541
Quote:
Originally Posted by MTAtech View Post
To suggest that the President is intentionally trying to have military personnel killed is not only false but beyond repulsive.
It was not a suggestion. It is a proven, verifiable fact that Obama is deliberately trying to get as many in the military killed as possible, just like Clinton before him. Liberal freaks have nothing but utter contempt for the military, Clinton even admitted this fact. A vote for any Democrat is a vote to deliberately kill military personnel.
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 03-06-2012, 09:57 AM
 
Location: South Carolina
8,145 posts, read 6,531,599 times
Reputation: 1754
Quote:
Originally Posted by Glitch View Post
It was not a suggestion. It is a proven, verifiable fact that Obama is deliberately trying to get as many in the military killed as possible, just like Clinton before him. Liberal freaks have nothing but utter contempt for the military, Clinton even admitted this fact. A vote for any Democrat is a vote to deliberately kill military personnel.
Have you lost it or what?
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
Please register to post and access all features of our very popular forum. It is free and quick. Over $68,000 in prizes has already been given out to active posters on our forum. Additional giveaways are planned.

Detailed information about all U.S. cities, counties, and zip codes on our site: City-data.com.


Reply
Please update this thread with any new information or opinions. This open thread is still read by thousands of people, so we encourage all additional points of view.

Quick Reply
Message:


Over $104,000 in prizes was already given out to active posters on our forum and additional giveaways are planned!

Go Back   City-Data Forum > General Forums > Politics and Other Controversies
Similar Threads

All times are GMT -6. The time now is 12:55 PM.

© 2005-2024, Advameg, Inc. · Please obey Forum Rules · Terms of Use and Privacy Policy · Bug Bounty

City-Data.com - Contact Us - Archive 1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, 7, 8, 9, 10, 11, 12, 13, 14, 15, 16, 17, 18, 19, 20, 21, 22, 23, 24, 25, 26, 27, 28, 29, 30, 31, 32, 33, 34, 35, 36, 37 - Top