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.
Candidate Obama and President Obama are two different people. Although Candidate Obama said he favored sending more troops to Afghanistan, which he did do as President, he completely backed down from the pretense that he expected to finish the job there. Instead, by setting a de facto deadline, 18 months, he essentionally told the world he doesn't have the same fortitude as President that he did as Candidate.
That's not exactly a bright spot in the league of War Presidents.
Here's a REAL bright spot in your "league of war presidents."
Can you name the guy who:
1. Started two middle east wars, one totally unjustified
2. Mismanaged both to a dgree thought unimaginable by most
3. Left office years later with both conflicts degraded into unresolved quagmires
Obama said he would wind down and bring most of the troops home FROM IRAQ by Aug 2010.
He NEVER said anything about withdrawing from Afghanistan. Infact Obama was in favor of sending more troops over there and focusing on Afghanistan. 1 reason he was critical of the Iraq war was because it took the focus off of Afghanistan. Remember Obama wanted to send troops on hot pursuit into Pakistan.
Under whos administration did these wars start?
Who waged a war on lies that has seen thousands of Americans dead and injured?
What kind of math do you use that sees almost 200 million White America be affected by a few thousand dead White soldiers. In Vietnam, 58,000 American servicemen died, so do you think LBJ was trying to wipe Whites out.
You should post the link to where Obama said these things..I'm not doubting you - But the proper protocol is to include a link..Remember, the intent of these boards is to educate others to the truth...
These wars started because of the negligence of Bill "Come-on touch my pecker" Clinton - He neglected to stop these terrorists when he had the opportunity - Ane you don't need a link for that. Bush had to do something - Remember ALL OF US were out waiving our flags, ALL OF US wanted something done. Even the coalition of international countries (many who then changed their mind when the shooting really started).
The casualties affect whites because of the demographics of the white population - Again, no link needed - It's common knowledge that the white population is aging and not producing children like the other groups. So every white kid killed or maimed lessens the future of the white population here (don't forget the wounded).
And the point about LBJ - Hey don't you remember? - He was reeally killing our minorities in the war.
You give a fair response (that is. not a radical wing-nut response). So I thank you and respect that.
There's something that you are overlooking in the links that I posted...
I'm going to keep reading thes responses to see if anyone get's it.
2. Whatever the reason for any discrepency (different ranks, different distribution, whatever) of a few percentage points is easily within the realm of statistical variability. The white military population and the deaths are almost the same percentage.
It is not within a few percentage points - Read the numbers.
From the enlistments, there should be twice as many black casualties (if the responsibility of combat duty is being distributed equitably).
Just when you think that folks can't possibly get any crazier..........just sign on to CD any day and you will find that they've managed to push the idiot button even harder.
No, there is no merit to this argument. None whatsoever.
The numbers are there..They are posted by the Department of Defense.
When you say "no merit", do you mean you can't think of anything? Or you don't have the ability to think for yourself?
Again, I am amazed...This shows how people post here without any real ability to respond to something if they cannot repeat facts or opinions from television or read from some some special interest article.
If you had the ability to read and reason simple numbers you would have given quite a reasonable response. But you can't, can you?
There can be an answer there ( on the fact sheets I posted)- in fact a few of them.
Maybe some of you should really stick with your "Dungeons and Dragons".
Obama said he would wind down and bring most of the troops home FROM IRAQ by Aug 2010.
He NEVER said anything about withdrawing from Afghanistan. Infact Obama was in favor of sending more troops over there and focusing on Afghanistan. 1 reason he was critical of the Iraq war was because it took the focus off of Afghanistan. Remember Obama wanted to send troops on hot pursuit into Pakistan.
So stating that Obama campaigned on bringing the troops home is not accurate as he only said he would bring them home from Iraq but that he would send more to Afghanistan.
Under whos administration did these wars start?
Who waged a war on lies that has seen thousands of Americans dead and injured?
For you to say that a few thousand White soldiers dying in Iraq and Afghanistan is going to affect the demographics of America is simply ludicrous. We have a population of over 300 million, of whom roughly %66 is White, not including the White Hispanics.
TS
What kind of math do you use that sees almost 200 million White America be affected by a few thousand dead White soldiers. In Vietnam, 58,000 American servicemen died, so do you think LBJ was trying to wipe Whites out.
I've come to realize that most of the Obama haters were asleep during most of 2008.
They woke up on Jan 20, 2009. You can't expect them to know about anything that happened in the world prior to that day.
Just when you think that folks can't possibly get any crazier..........just sign on to CD any day and you will find that they've managed to push the idiot button even harder.
Brilliant contribution...Did you finish your homework?
It is not within a few percentage points - Read the numbers.
From the enlistments, there should be twice as many black casualties (if the responsibility of combat duty is being distributed equitably).
Give a reason for that?
The numbers for white casualties are within a few percentage points.
As for why fewer black people are killed, who knows?
Perhaps their darker skin hides them better?
Perhaps they are generally more athletic?
I knew a guy who was left handed and said it saved him on many occasions that killed others because the enemy always thought he was going to pop out the other side of a barrier.
Shall I start a thread on Obama's attempt to rid the world of right handers?
All that said - you're still blaming Obama for wars started under Bush. Most of those casualties happened under Bush, so the premise of your argument is simply wrong. Why can't you see this?
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.
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.
In other words, you are afraid of facts?
