Follow along with the video below to see how to install our site as a web app on your home screen.
Note: This feature may not be available in some browsers.
trader4@optonline.net wrote in
news:c1a8c3dc-1d40-41aa-ab28-a3bd3e635ee1@googlegroups.com:
On Tuesday, May 14, 2019 at 12:51:51 PM UTC-4,
DecadentLinux...@decadence.org wrote:
Bill Sloman <bill.sloman@ieee.org> wrote in
news:14a1d58e-b1da-4a30-9be4-a6c28754c07f@googlegroups.com:
Cheney's links with Halliburton don't suggest that the then
Republican administration was all that honest.
I am reasonably sure that he did not even watch that movie, and
it
had plenty of Cheney endorsed facts in it.
Wrong, always wrong and jumping to foolish conclusions when you
have no way of knowing. And I suppose you think that because
Oliver Stone made a Hollywood movie about the JFK assassination,
that means the CIA killed him, that it's factual.
ROFL
Oh looky folks... this dipshit thiks that a fictional movie about
an assassination that went uninvestigated is comparable to a film
about the actions of a still living man whom FULLY endorsed the
facts related in the film.
You are a real piece of work, you stupid fucktard.
On Wednesday, May 15, 2019 at 12:44:10 AM UTC-4, Bill Sloman wrote:
On Wednesday, May 15, 2019 at 6:12:06 AM UTC+10, tra...@optonline.net wrote:
On Tuesday, May 14, 2019 at 12:04:15 PM UTC-4, Bill Sloman wrote:
On Wednesday, May 15, 2019 at 12:39:16 AM UTC+10, tra...@optonline.net wrote:
On Tuesday, May 14, 2019 at 8:36:48 AM UTC-4, Bill Sloman wrote:
On Tuesday, May 14, 2019 at 9:34:56 PM UTC+10, tra...@optonline..net wrote:
On Tuesday, May 14, 2019 at 12:57:48 AM UTC-4, jurb...@gmail.com wrote:
Do try to keep up. Saddam is dead and gone.
USian huh. You think the rest of the world forgets as fast as Joe Sixpack. Fine, but you're wrong about some of us.
Those two countries take 2.5 time what the US buys.
You seem to be assuming I am stupid or something. Of course they buy more oil, first of all it is TWO countries and they are BIG.
When you ASSUME...
The point is it always was the Iraqis oil and they are selling it
in the world markets, just as they always did.
They didn't sell any immediately after the US invasion because Saddam had set the oil fields on fire.
Once the fires had been put out, the US controlled the oil fields (as much as they controlled anything else) and sold the oil.
With all the proceeds going to IRAQ you lib lying shyster.
Can you document this claim?
There's a good example of how you libs work. YOU make some absurd allegation, state it as fact, and then you want me to prove it's not true.
ROFL
"With all the proceeds going to IRAQ" is an absurd claim. Even if everybody involved was being as altruistic as possible, the some of the money paid for the oil on delivery would have gone to pay the shippers who got it from Irak to the customer. Since Haliburton was involve, altruism won't have been a major factor.
You're the one who's a hopeless lib absurdity. Of course the costs of
fixing the wells that Saddam had blown up, pumping the oil, etc were
paid for out of the revenue stream from the oil. It was the Iraqis
revenue and the Iraqi's cost. Talk about an argumentative asshole.
You pull pure fiction from nowhere, claiming that the US took the Iraqis
oil, no you're arguing because there were expenses associated with the
revenue?
Quite amazing. And then you top it off with more conspiracy nonsense..
Haliburton and Cheney isn't exactly "conspiracy nonsense". Their involvement with each other and Irak is well documented fact. Nobody has gone to prison, and while "Cheney was named in a December 2010 corruption complaint filed by the Nigerian government against Halliburton, which the company settled for $250 million", and seems to have been involved in the ENRON scandal, he seems to have been able to hide the incriminating documents under vice-presidential privilege.
What's next? Asking me to prove Bush was president in 2010 and 2011.
He wasn't.
Good that you figured it out. I'm sure you wished you had figured that out
before you made that post where you explained how everything in Iraq started
downhill in 2010 and 2011.
You agreed with that happening, which is correct,
only because you made the big mistake of thinking that BUSH was still
president. Ouch! That must really hurt.
That's right the Aussie lib that doesn't even know that, who documented
how Iraq started down the tubes in 2010, because you thought Bush was
still president and you were trying to pin that on Bush, is the one that
knows about Iraqi oil.
ROFL
Your claim is that Irak started to go down the tubes in 2010 when Obama became president. There's not a shred of evidence that Irak's trajectory shifted at all when Obama took over. I certainly didn't document any change that happened in 2010 because there weren't any that mattered.
ROFL What a liar! You did exactly that!
You thought you were pinning
the slide in Iraq on Bush, thinking he was president in 2010 and 2011.
Instead, you put it right where it belongs, on OBAMA. Ouch! Double
ouch!
You can roll around the floor gibbering as much as you like - the fact that the real story doesn't fit your bizarre delusions is obvious to everybody who doesn't happen to stuck your political blind spots.
The real story fits perfectly and you were very happy with it, when you
thought Bush was president in 2010 and 2011. When you learned of your
HUGE mistake, you do what libs do, lie some more.
On Wednesday, May 15, 2019 at 12:59:17 AM UTC-4, Bill Sloman wrote:
On Wednesday, May 15, 2019 at 6:18:35 AM UTC+10, tra...@optonline.net wrote:
On Tuesday, May 14, 2019 at 12:34:30 PM UTC-4, DecadentLinux...@decadence.org wrote:
trader4@optonline.net wrote in
news:0d0922f6-8083-4d99-9ea3-b92ca011c40a@googlegroups.com:
The lie repeated is still a lie. If the US wanted to "take" the
Iraqi oil, we could have and would have.
He was not talking about post war.
Wrong again, always wrong. Bill certainly was talking about post war.
BTW, are you his spokesman now?
Trader4 thinks he can tell me what I demonstrated about Irak - which would mean that he thinks that he is my spokesman, and DLUNU is trying to supplant him.
Your spokesman? WTF? All I did was use exactly what you posted where you
documented how Iraq started downhill in 2010 and 2011.
You did that, admitted the factual truth, only because you made the HUGE error > of thinking that BUSH was still president and you were trying to pin it on
him. Instead, you pinned it precisely where it belongs, on OBAMA. Ouch!
On Thursday, May 16, 2019 at 1:23:19 AM UTC+10, tra...@optonline.net wrote:
On Wednesday, May 15, 2019 at 12:59:17 AM UTC-4, Bill Sloman wrote:
On Wednesday, May 15, 2019 at 6:18:35 AM UTC+10, tra...@optonline.net wrote:
On Tuesday, May 14, 2019 at 12:34:30 PM UTC-4, DecadentLinux...@decadence.org wrote:
trader4@optonline.net wrote in
news:0d0922f6-8083-4d99-9ea3-b92ca011c40a@googlegroups.com:
The lie repeated is still a lie. If the US wanted to "take" the
Iraqi oil, we could have and would have.
He was not talking about post war.
Wrong again, always wrong. Bill certainly was talking about post war.
BTW, are you his spokesman now?
Trader4 thinks he can tell me what I demonstrated about Irak - which would mean that he thinks that he is my spokesman, and DLUNU is trying to supplant him.
Your spokesman? WTF? All I did was use exactly what you posted where you
documented how Iraq started downhill in 2010 and 2011.
You've never quoted from any of the posts I've made. You post things which you seem to think I've said, but have never bothered to back them up with exact words.
I posted this link
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Iraq_War_troop_surge_of_2007#/media/File:Iraq_Troop_Strength.svg
which you don't seem to have looked at, and pointed out that it shows the US occupying force going down smoothly from it's peak in 2007.
I didn't say a thing about conditions in Irak before 2014, when ISIS move in.
You did that, admitted the factual truth, only because you made the HUGE error > of thinking that BUSH was still president and you were trying to pin it on
him. Instead, you pinned it precisely where it belongs, on OBAMA. Ouch!
Idiot. The retreat was all Bush's work, and it continued under Obama. End of story.
snip
--
Bill Sloman, Sydney
The point I've been making all along was that the retreat from Irak was forced on George W Bush around 2004, pretty much as soon as it became obvious that Irak needed a bigger occupying army than the US could afford.
Obama went along with the retreat. He didn't change anything that mattered.
He's not a Republican, so you want to blame him for everything that went wrong but your wishes fly in the face of reality.
Pity about that.
On Wednesday, May 15, 2019 at 12:11:24 PM UTC-4, Bill Sloman wrote:
On Thursday, May 16, 2019 at 1:23:19 AM UTC+10, tra...@optonline.net wrote:
On Wednesday, May 15, 2019 at 12:59:17 AM UTC-4, Bill Sloman wrote:
On Wednesday, May 15, 2019 at 6:18:35 AM UTC+10, tra...@optonline.net wrote:
On Tuesday, May 14, 2019 at 12:34:30 PM UTC-4, DecadentLinux...@decadence.org wrote:
trader4@optonline.net wrote in
news:0d0922f6-8083-4d99-9ea3-b92ca011c40a@googlegroups.com:
The lie repeated is still a lie. If the US wanted to "take" the
Iraqi oil, we could have and would have.
He was not talking about post war.
Wrong again, always wrong. Bill certainly was talking about post war.
BTW, are you his spokesman now?
Trader4 thinks he can tell me what I demonstrated about Irak - which would mean that he thinks that he is my spokesman, and DLUNU is trying to supplant him.
Your spokesman? WTF? All I did was use exactly what you posted where you
documented how Iraq started downhill in 2010 and 2011.
You've never quoted from any of the posts I've made. You post things which you seem to think I've said, but have never bothered to back them up with exact words.
I posted this link
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Iraq_War_troop_surge_of_2007#/media/File:Iraq_Troop_Strength.svg
which you don't seem to have looked at, and pointed out that it shows the US occupying force going down smoothly from it's peak in 2007.
I didn't say a thing about conditions in Irak before 2014, when ISIS move in.
You did that, admitted the factual truth, only because you made the HUGE error > of thinking that BUSH was still president and you were trying to pin it on
him. Instead, you pinned it precisely where it belongs, on OBAMA. Ouch!
Idiot. The retreat was all Bush's work, and it continued under Obama. End of story.
snip
It wasn't a retreat, you lying lib. Iraq was stable, functioning and Bush
made troop withdrawals consistent with that.
On Wednesday, May 15, 2019 at 12:00:24 PM UTC-4, Bill Sloman wrote:
The point I've been making all along was that the retreat from Irak was forced on George W Bush around 2004, pretty much as soon as it became obvious that Irak needed a bigger occupying army than the US could afford.
That's another lie, as evidenced by the SURGE, which worked.
The surge in 2007 was necessary to get the place under enough control to give Maliki and the rest enough space to let them take over.
Obama went along with the retreat. He didn't change anything that mattered.
He's not a Republican, so you want to blame him for everything that went wrong but your wishes fly in the face of reality.
Pity about that.
That's another lie. I only blame Obama for what he did, which even YOU
amply documented, because you thought Bush was president in 2010 and 2011
when it happened.
And that piece from The Atlantic pub the blame squarely
on Obama too. But when you learned that Obama was president, Doh!
Then the story changed. Pity about that.
On Thursday, May 16, 2019 at 3:31:27 AM UTC+10, tra...@optonline.net wrote:
On Wednesday, May 15, 2019 at 12:00:24 PM UTC-4, Bill Sloman wrote:
The point I've been making all along was that the retreat from Irak was forced on George W Bush around 2004, pretty much as soon as it became obvious that Irak needed a bigger occupying army than the US could afford.
That's another lie, as evidenced by the SURGE, which worked.
The surge worked in the sense that it reduced the insurgencies that were active at the time to manageable proportions.
snipped more ignorant misapprehensions
The surge in 2007 was necessary to get the place under enough control to give Maliki and the rest enough space to let them take over.
Obama went along with the retreat. He didn't change anything that mattered.
He's not a Republican, so you want to blame him for everything that went wrong but your wishes fly in the face of reality.
Pity about that.
That's another lie. I only blame Obama for what he did, which even YOU
amply documented, because you thought Bush was president in 2010 and 2011
when it happened.
You blame him for what you like to think he did. What do you think actually happened in 2010 and 2011? I know you think that Obama had a magic wand that he could have waved to make Maliki behave better, and have this weird delusion that Obama and Clinton didn't know that Maliki was behaving badly,
Maliki probably wouldn't have taken the deal if it had included that kind of option.
And that piece from The Atlantic pub the blame squarely
on Obama too. But when you learned that Obama was president, Doh!
Then the story changed. Pity about that.
Actually, it didn't. The Atlantic article expressed the wish that Obama had leaned harder on Maliki, but didn't spell out any way he might have done so.
Next!
Your capacity to ignore your own errors is remarkable, matched only by your capacity to attribute errors to other people that they haven't actually made.
Not a point that you are going to notice - your capacity to read selectively and remember badly (but to your own advantage) is equally remarkable.
Your claim that something is "exactly what I've said" when you haven't bothered to go back and cut and paste exactly what I did say is representative of your feeble grasp of reality.
--
Bill Sloman, Sydney
On Thursday, May 16, 2019 at 3:39:59 AM UTC+10, tra...@optonline.net wrote:
On Wednesday, May 15, 2019 at 12:11:24 PM UTC-4, Bill Sloman wrote:
On Thursday, May 16, 2019 at 1:23:19 AM UTC+10, tra...@optonline.net wrote:
On Wednesday, May 15, 2019 at 12:59:17 AM UTC-4, Bill Sloman wrote:
On Wednesday, May 15, 2019 at 6:18:35 AM UTC+10, tra...@optonline..net wrote:
On Tuesday, May 14, 2019 at 12:34:30 PM UTC-4, DecadentLinux...@decadence.org wrote:
trader4@optonline.net wrote in
news:0d0922f6-8083-4d99-9ea3-b92ca011c40a@googlegroups.com:
The lie repeated is still a lie. If the US wanted to "take" the
Iraqi oil, we could have and would have.
He was not talking about post war.
Wrong again, always wrong. Bill certainly was talking about post war.
BTW, are you his spokesman now?
Trader4 thinks he can tell me what I demonstrated about Irak - which would mean that he thinks that he is my spokesman, and DLUNU is trying to supplant him.
Your spokesman? WTF? All I did was use exactly what you posted where you
documented how Iraq started downhill in 2010 and 2011.
You've never quoted from any of the posts I've made. You post things which you seem to think I've said, but have never bothered to back them up with exact words.
I posted this link
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Iraq_War_troop_surge_of_2007#/media/File:Iraq_Troop_Strength.svg
which you don't seem to have looked at, and pointed out that it shows the US occupying force going down smoothly from it's peak in 2007.
I didn't say a thing about conditions in Irak before 2014, when ISIS move in.
You did that, admitted the factual truth, only because you made the HUGE error > of thinking that BUSH was still president and you were trying to pin it on
him. Instead, you pinned it precisely where it belongs, on OBAMA. Ouch!
Idiot. The retreat was all Bush's work, and it continued under Obama. End of story.
snip
It wasn't a retreat, you lying lib. Iraq was stable, functioning and Bush
made troop withdrawals consistent with that.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Iraqi_insurgency_(2003%E2%80%932011)
This isn't the first time I've posted this link and I don't expect you to read or understand it this time either.
Irak might have been functioning, but it wasn't stable, and it needed a bigger occupying army than the US could afford from day that the US took over.
The lies are all yours (though you clearly seem to be too stupid to realise that you are lying).
snip
--
Bill Sloman, Sydney
On Thursday, May 16, 2019 at 12:19:00 AM UTC-4, Bill Sloman wrote:
On Thursday, May 16, 2019 at 3:39:59 AM UTC+10, tra...@optonline.net wrote:
On Wednesday, May 15, 2019 at 12:11:24 PM UTC-4, Bill Sloman wrote:
On Thursday, May 16, 2019 at 1:23:19 AM UTC+10, tra...@optonline.net wrote:
On Wednesday, May 15, 2019 at 12:59:17 AM UTC-4, Bill Sloman wrote:
On Wednesday, May 15, 2019 at 6:18:35 AM UTC+10, tra...@optonline.net wrote:
On Tuesday, May 14, 2019 at 12:34:30 PM UTC-4, DecadentLinux....@decadence.org wrote:
trader4@optonline.net wrote in
news:0d0922f6-8083-4d99-9ea3-b92ca011c40a@googlegroups.com:
Trader4 thinks he can tell me what I demonstrated about Irak - which would mean that he thinks that he is my spokesman, and DLUNU is trying to supplant him.
Your spokesman? WTF? All I did was use exactly what you posted where you documented how Iraq started downhill in 2010 and 2011.
You've never quoted from any of the posts I've made. You post things which you seem to think I've said, but have never bothered to back them up with exact words.
I posted this link
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Iraq_War_troop_surge_of_2007#/media/File:Iraq_Troop_Strength.svg
which you don't seem to have looked at, and pointed out that it shows the US occupying force going down smoothly from it's peak in 2007.
I didn't say a thing about conditions in Irak before 2014, when ISIS move in.
You did that, admitted the factual truth, only because you made the HUGE error of thinking that BUSH was still president and you were trying to pin it on him. Instead, you pinned it precisely where it belongs, on OBAMA. Ouch!
Idiot. The retreat was all Bush's work, and it continued under Obama. End of story.
snip
It wasn't a retreat, you lying lib. Iraq was stable, functioning and Bush
made troop withdrawals consistent with that.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Iraqi_insurgency_(2003%E2%80%932011)
This isn't the first time I've posted this link and I don't expect you to read or understand it this time either.
Irak might have been functioning, but it wasn't stable, and it needed a bigger occupying army than the US could afford from day that the US took over.
The lies are all yours (though you clearly seem to be too stupid to realise that you are lying).
snip
Bill Sloman, Sydney
Quite the contrary, you've once again proved what I said true. From your
own cite:
Sectarian civil war (2006â2008)
After Iraqi security forces took the lead in security operations on 30 June 2009, Iraq experienced a "dramatic reduction in war-related violence of all types ..., with civilian and military deaths down by 80 to 90 percent compared with the same period in 2008."[20]
The Iraqi attacks since U.S. withdrawal[21] relates to the last stage of violent terror activities engaged by Iraqi, primarily radical Sunni, insurgent groups against the central government and the sectarian warfare between various factions within Iraq, in the aftermath of the U.S. withdrawal. The events of post-U.S. withdrawal violence succeeded the previous insurgency in Iraq
In 2010, the low point for the al-Qaeda effort in Iraq, car bombings declined to an average of 10 a month and multiple-location attacks occurred only two or three times a year. "
And then Obama just pulled all US troops out and let it all go to hell
in a hand basket.
And now, after all the bloodshed, all the treasure
lost, all the deaths, where are we? Back in Iraq with 5,000+ troops!
Had Obama simply left 5,000 to 20,000 we would not have lost it all
to begin with.
Case closed. All that bloodshed and for sure all the
deaths in Syria by ISIS using US military gear is on Obama's hands.
The Atlantic:
"Obama's Disastrous Iraq Policy: An Autopsy
The president ignored the country and its increasingly dictatorial prime minister for years."
On Thursday, May 16, 2019 at 12:13:19 AM UTC-4, Bill Sloman wrote:
On Thursday, May 16, 2019 at 3:31:27 AM UTC+10, tra...@optonline.net wrote:
On Wednesday, May 15, 2019 at 12:00:24 PM UTC-4, Bill Sloman wrote:
The point I've been making all along was that the retreat from Irak was forced on George W Bush around 2004, pretty much as soon as it became obvious that Irak needed a bigger occupying army than the US could afford.
That's another lie, as evidenced by the SURGE, which worked.
The surge worked in the sense that it reduced the insurgencies that were active at the time to manageable proportions.
No shit Sherlock, like I said, Bush had it won,
Was Obama totally feckless or did he want to arm ISIS? Those are the
only two choices.
On Thursday, May 16, 2019 at 10:32:33 PM UTC+10, tra...@optonline.net wrote:
On Thursday, May 16, 2019 at 12:19:00 AM UTC-4, Bill Sloman wrote:
On Thursday, May 16, 2019 at 3:39:59 AM UTC+10, tra...@optonline.net wrote:
On Wednesday, May 15, 2019 at 12:11:24 PM UTC-4, Bill Sloman wrote:
On Thursday, May 16, 2019 at 1:23:19 AM UTC+10, tra...@optonline.net wrote:
On Wednesday, May 15, 2019 at 12:59:17 AM UTC-4, Bill Sloman wrote:
On Wednesday, May 15, 2019 at 6:18:35 AM UTC+10, tra...@optonline.net wrote:
On Tuesday, May 14, 2019 at 12:34:30 PM UTC-4, DecadentLinux...@decadence.org wrote:
trader4@optonline.net wrote in
news:0d0922f6-8083-4d99-9ea3-b92ca011c40a@googlegroups.com:
snip
Trader4 thinks he can tell me what I demonstrated about Irak - which would mean that he thinks that he is my spokesman, and DLUNU is trying to supplant him.
Your spokesman? WTF? All I did was use exactly what you posted where you documented how Iraq started downhill in 2010 and 2011.
You've never quoted from any of the posts I've made. You post things which you seem to think I've said, but have never bothered to back them up with exact words.
I posted this link
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Iraq_War_troop_surge_of_2007#/media/File:Iraq_Troop_Strength.svg
which you don't seem to have looked at, and pointed out that it shows the US occupying force going down smoothly from it's peak in 2007.
I didn't say a thing about conditions in Irak before 2014, when ISIS move in.
You did that, admitted the factual truth, only because you made the HUGE error of thinking that BUSH was still president and you were trying to pin it on him. Instead, you pinned it precisely where it belongs, on OBAMA. Ouch!
Idiot. The retreat was all Bush's work, and it continued under Obama. End of story.
snip
It wasn't a retreat, you lying lib. Iraq was stable, functioning and Bush
made troop withdrawals consistent with that.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Iraqi_insurgency_(2003%E2%80%932011)
This isn't the first time I've posted this link and I don't expect you to read or understand it this time either.
Irak might have been functioning, but it wasn't stable, and it needed a bigger occupying army than the US could afford from day that the US took over.
The lies are all yours (though you clearly seem to be too stupid to realise that you are lying).
snip
Bill Sloman, Sydney
Quite the contrary, you've once again proved what I said true. From your
own cite:
Sectarian civil war (2006â2008)
After Iraqi security forces took the lead in security operations on 30 June 2009, Iraq experienced a "dramatic reduction in war-related violence of all types ..., with civilian and military deaths down by 80 to 90 percent compared with the same period in 2008."[20]
The Iraqi attacks since U.S. withdrawal[21] relates to the last stage of violent terror activities engaged by Iraqi, primarily radical Sunni, insurgent groups against the central government and the sectarian warfare between various factions within Iraq, in the aftermath of the U.S. withdrawal. The events of post-U.S. withdrawal violence succeeded the previous insurgency in Iraq
In 2010, the low point for the al-Qaeda effort in Iraq, car bombings declined to an average of 10 a month and multiple-location attacks occurred only two or three times a year. "
That may be from the link I cited, but what has it got to do with the position from 2003 - after the US invasion - to 2007 when Dubbya had to push up the occupying force (the surge) to control the insurredctions that were going on then?
You can cut and paste - but apparently not from the words I posted - and none of the words that you have cut and pasted has anything to do with the point that you seem to want to make.
And then Obama just pulled all US troops out and let it all go to hell
in a hand basket.
" Iraqi security forces took the lead in security operations on 30 June 2009".
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Iraq_War_troop_surge_of_2007#/media/File:Iraq_Troop_Strength.svg
shows that Obama didn't pull all the troops out when he took office at the beginning of 2009. There was a fairly smooth reduction that took the occupying force down to 50,000 in the middle of 2010, and it stayed at that level until the end of 2011. The text you cut and pasted suggests that Irak was relatively quiet at that stage.
And now, after all the bloodshed, all the treasure
lost, all the deaths, where are we? Back in Iraq with 5,000+ troops!
The eruption of ISIS into Irak out of Syria came as a surprise. It has been dealt with as a new situation - the reconstituted Iraqi army had fallen apart when ISIS popped up and had to be rebuilt again.
Had Obama simply left 5,000 to 20,000 we would not have lost it all
to begin with.
The loss was Irak's. They'd taken over security with a corrupt and ineffective army, good enough to suppress domestic insurrection, but useless against ISIS which had been fighting the Syrian army and had been somewhat battle-hardened.
The Kurds did much better against ISIS than the Iraqi army
Irak wanted all the Americans out at the end of 2011, and that seems to have been the deal that Dubbya set up. Obama wasn't in a position to just "leave US troops in Irak".
Case closed. All that bloodshed and for sure all the
deaths in Syria by ISIS using US military gear is on Obama's hands.
Dubbya's actually. It was his deal.
The Atlantic:
"Obama's Disastrous Iraq Policy: An Autopsy
The president ignored the country and its increasingly dictatorial prime minister for years."
That's the way the article was titled. If you had read it, you would have realised that Obama hadn't ignored Malilki's foolish antics, but Dubbya's deal with Maliki hadn't left Obama any leverage with Maliki to get him to behave better. Maliki's perceptions of Obama opinions wasn't all that clever either - pretty much down at your level of seeing what he wanted to see.
--
Bill Sloman, Sydney
So many reports about how the average tax refund is down from last
year. But the reports leave out the fact that the average
household tax bill has been reduced by $1,400.
Mikek
On Thursday, May 16, 2019 at 11:38:14 AM UTC-4, Bill Sloman wrote:
On Thursday, May 16, 2019 at 10:32:33 PM UTC+10, tra...@optonline.net wrote:
On Thursday, May 16, 2019 at 12:19:00 AM UTC-4, Bill Sloman wrote:
On Thursday, May 16, 2019 at 3:39:59 AM UTC+10, tra...@optonline.net wrote:
On Wednesday, May 15, 2019 at 12:11:24 PM UTC-4, Bill Sloman wrote:
On Thursday, May 16, 2019 at 1:23:19 AM UTC+10, tra...@optonline.net wrote:
On Wednesday, May 15, 2019 at 12:59:17 AM UTC-4, Bill Sloman wrote:
On Wednesday, May 15, 2019 at 6:18:35 AM UTC+10, tra...@optonline.net wrote:
On Tuesday, May 14, 2019 at 12:34:30 PM UTC-4, DecadentLinux...@decadence.org wrote:
trader4@optonline.net wrote in
news:0d0922f6-8083-4d99-9ea3-b92ca011c40a@googlegroups.com:
Case closed. All that bloodshed and for sure all the
deaths in Syria by ISIS using US military gear is on Obama's hands.
Dubbya's actually. It was his deal.
The Atlantic:
"Obama's Disastrous Iraq Policy: An Autopsy
The president ignored the country and its increasingly dictatorial prime minister for years."
That's the way the article was titled. If you had read it, you would have realised that Obama hadn't ignored Malilki's foolish antics, but Dubbya's deal with Maliki hadn't left Obama any leverage with Maliki to get him to behave better. Maliki's perceptions of Obama opinions wasn't all that clever either - pretty much down at your level of seeing what he wanted to see.
Yeah sure, the article is totally different than the title.
On Thursday, May 16, 2019 at 10:32:33 PM UTC+10, tra...@optonline.net wrote:
On Thursday, May 16, 2019 at 12:19:00 AM UTC-4, Bill Sloman wrote:
On Thursday, May 16, 2019 at 3:39:59 AM UTC+10, tra...@optonline.net wrote:
On Wednesday, May 15, 2019 at 12:11:24 PM UTC-4, Bill Sloman wrote:
On Thursday, May 16, 2019 at 1:23:19 AM UTC+10, tra...@optonline.net wrote:
On Wednesday, May 15, 2019 at 12:59:17 AM UTC-4, Bill Sloman wrote:
On Wednesday, May 15, 2019 at 6:18:35 AM UTC+10, tra...@optonline.net wrote:
On Tuesday, May 14, 2019 at 12:34:30 PM UTC-4, DecadentLinux...@decadence.org wrote:
trader4@optonline.net wrote in
news:0d0922f6-8083-4d99-9ea3-b92ca011c40a@googlegroups.com:
snip
Trader4 thinks he can tell me what I demonstrated about Irak - which would mean that he thinks that he is my spokesman, and DLUNU is trying to supplant him.
Your spokesman? WTF? All I did was use exactly what you posted where you documented how Iraq started downhill in 2010 and 2011.
You've never quoted from any of the posts I've made. You post things which you seem to think I've said, but have never bothered to back them up with exact words.
I posted this link
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Iraq_War_troop_surge_of_2007#/media/File:Iraq_Troop_Strength.svg
which you don't seem to have looked at, and pointed out that it shows the US occupying force going down smoothly from it's peak in 2007.
I didn't say a thing about conditions in Irak before 2014, when ISIS move in.
You did that, admitted the factual truth, only because you made the HUGE error of thinking that BUSH was still president and you were trying to pin it on him. Instead, you pinned it precisely where it belongs, on OBAMA. Ouch!
Idiot. The retreat was all Bush's work, and it continued under Obama. End of story.
snip
It wasn't a retreat, you lying lib. Iraq was stable, functioning and Bush
made troop withdrawals consistent with that.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Iraqi_insurgency_(2003%E2%80%932011)
This isn't the first time I've posted this link and I don't expect you to read or understand it this time either.
Irak might have been functioning, but it wasn't stable, and it needed a bigger occupying army than the US could afford from day that the US took over.
The lies are all yours (though you clearly seem to be too stupid to realise that you are lying).
snip
Bill Sloman, Sydney
Quite the contrary, you've once again proved what I said true. From your
own cite:
Sectarian civil war (2006â2008)
After Iraqi security forces took the lead in security operations on 30 June 2009, Iraq experienced a "dramatic reduction in war-related violence of all types ..., with civilian and military deaths down by 80 to 90 percent compared with the same period in 2008."[20]
The Iraqi attacks since U.S. withdrawal[21] relates to the last stage of violent terror activities engaged by Iraqi, primarily radical Sunni, insurgent groups against the central government and the sectarian warfare between various factions within Iraq, in the aftermath of the U.S. withdrawal. The events of post-U.S. withdrawal violence succeeded the previous insurgency in Iraq
In 2010, the low point for the al-Qaeda effort in Iraq, car bombings declined to an average of 10 a month and multiple-location attacks occurred only two or three times a year. "
That may be from the link I cited, but what has it got to do with the position from 2003 - after the US invasion - to 2007 when Dubbya had to push up the occupying force (the surge) to control the insurredctions that were going on then?
You can cut and paste - but apparently not from the words I posted - and none of the words that you have cut and pasted has anything to do with the point that you seem to want to make.
And then Obama just pulled all US troops out and let it all go to hell
in a hand basket.
" Iraqi security forces took the lead in security operations on 30 June 2009".
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Iraq_War_troop_surge_of_2007#/media/File:Iraq_Troop_Strength.svg
shows that Obama didn't pull all the troops out when he took office at the beginning of 2009.
And now, after all the bloodshed, all the treasure
lost, all the deaths, where are we? Back in Iraq with 5,000+ troops!
The eruption of ISIS into Irak out of Syria came as a surprise. It has been dealt with as a new situation - the reconstituted Iraqi army had fallen apart when ISIS popped up and had to be rebuilt again.
Had Obama simply left 5,000 to 20,000 we would not have lost it all
to begin with.
The loss was Irak's. They'd taken over security with a corrupt and ineffective army, good enough to suppress domestic insurrection, but useless against ISIS which had been fighting the Syrian army and had been somewhat battle-hardened.
The Kurds did much better against ISIS than the Iraqi army
Irak wanted all the Americans out at the end of 2011, and that seems to have been the deal that Dubbya set up. Obama wasn't in a position to just "leave US troops in Irak".
Case closed. All that bloodshed and for sure all the
deaths in Syria by ISIS using US military gear is on Obama's hands.
Dubbya's actually. It was his deal.
The Atlantic:
"Obama's Disastrous Iraq Policy: An Autopsy
The president ignored the country and its increasingly dictatorial prime minister for years."
That's the way the article was titled. If you had read it, you would have realised that Obama hadn't ignored Malilki's foolish antics, but Dubbya's deal with Maliki hadn't left Obama any leverage with Maliki to get him to behave better. Maliki's perceptions of Obama opinions wasn't all that clever either - pretty much down at your level of seeing what he wanted to see.
--
Bill Sloman, Sydney
On Saturday, May 18, 2019 at 12:28:32 AM UTC+10, tra...@optonline.net wrote:
On Thursday, May 16, 2019 at 11:38:14 AM UTC-4, Bill Sloman wrote:
On Thursday, May 16, 2019 at 10:32:33 PM UTC+10, tra...@optonline.net wrote:
On Thursday, May 16, 2019 at 12:19:00 AM UTC-4, Bill Sloman wrote:
On Thursday, May 16, 2019 at 3:39:59 AM UTC+10, tra...@optonline.net wrote:
On Wednesday, May 15, 2019 at 12:11:24 PM UTC-4, Bill Sloman wrote:
On Thursday, May 16, 2019 at 1:23:19 AM UTC+10, tra...@optonline.net wrote:
On Wednesday, May 15, 2019 at 12:59:17 AM UTC-4, Bill Sloman wrote:
On Wednesday, May 15, 2019 at 6:18:35 AM UTC+10, tra...@optonline.net wrote:
On Tuesday, May 14, 2019 at 12:34:30 PM UTC-4, DecadentLinux...@decadence.org wrote:
trader4@optonline.net wrote in
news:0d0922f6-8083-4d99-9ea3-b92ca011c40a@googlegroups.com:
snip
That may be from the link I cited, but what has it got to do with the position from 2003 - after the US invasion - to 2007 when Dubbya had to push up the occupying force (the surge) to control the insurrections that were going on then?
Nothing of course, because we're talking about how Obama let victory turn
into disaster starting in 2010, 2011.
No. You are trying to tell us that Dubbya's invasion of Irak was some kind of victory - based on the fact that the US Army defeated Saddam's army - when it fact it was a huge mistake, based on Dubbya's delusion that he could occupy Irak with an army of about 150,000.
When Dubbya realised that he'd actually stuck his arm into a meat-grinder he negotiated a phased and gradual retreat that was still going on when Obama took over.
Despite your moronic delusions, there was no victory and the disaster was built into the deal that Dubbya negotiated to get out, when he finally realised that he hadn't won anything that he could hang onto.
It may suit some kind of Republican myth-making to claim otherwise, but that doesn't stop it from being fatuous nonsense.
Take you twaddle and push it somewhere else that's better supplied with gullible twits. Your persistence and isolation from reality may be valued there - here you are merely one more despicable troll (though not quite as despicable as John Doe).
snip
--
Bill Sloman, Sydney
On Thursday, May 16, 2019 at 12:04:35 PM UTC-4, Bill Sloman wrote:
On Thursday, May 16, 2019 at 10:24:09 PM UTC+10, tra...@optonline.net wrote:
On Thursday, May 16, 2019 at 12:13:19 AM UTC-4, Bill Sloman wrote:
On Thursday, May 16, 2019 at 3:31:27 AM UTC+10, tra...@optonline.net wrote:
On Wednesday, May 15, 2019 at 12:00:24 PM UTC-4, Bill Sloman wrote:
The point I've been making all along was that the retreat from Irak was forced on George W Bush around 2004, pretty much as soon as it became obvious that Irak needed a bigger occupying army than the US could afford.
That's another lie, as evidenced by the SURGE, which worked.
The surge worked in the sense that it reduced the insurgencies that were active at the time to manageable proportions.
No shit Sherlock, like I said, Bush had it won,
The US Army beat the Iraqi Army, and to that extent, Bush had won the first round.
To win the country he had to occupy it with enough troops to maintain control - the Joint Chiefs of staff had told him he'd need 300,000 troops, and he hadn't believed them. It took a couple of years for him to admit that they'd been right, and negotiate a gradual withdrawal.
That's another lib lie. Why do you libs always lie? Sure, the years after
the war were not good. So what? Bush did put the troops in that the pentagon
recommended to fix it with the Surge in 2007!
and that's why Bush and the Iraqi govt agreed to removing the
troops. The Iraqi govt would not have agreed to it had they believed the
country was unstable.
On Wednesday, April 10, 2019 at 3:44:04 PM UTC-5, amdx wrote:
So many reports about how the average tax refund is down from last
year. But the reports leave out the fact that the average
household tax bill has been reduced by $1,400.
Mikek
After reading a good piece of the wasteland his thread has become, I wonder if you all argue like this about whether to use a 2N2222 or 3904.
A tax refund is somewhat proportional to the total tax bill, and even though that should be common knowledge there are people so stupid they think it means higher taxes.
If taxes went down but someone wants to use the IRS as a bank account like a "Christmas club" then they can take zero deductions and instead of their take home pay going up, They get it in a lump sum next year.
The IRS does however have rules on just how much you can do this. I don't know exactly what the limit is but if your refund is more than so many percent of your tax there is a penalty.
Another rule for dealing with the IRS is always mail. Not email, not telephone, regular post office snail mail. There are several advantages to this and really they don't need to be enumerated here.
Some people do use it as a bank account though. They will borrow a bunch of money, say they don't have good credit and they borrow from friends and family for Christmas. Then pay them all back when they get their check.
People are also stupid in another thing. First of all 4/11 means nothing unless you owe them. you can file ten years later if you want, but why let them use your money ?
Actually the interest they pay is not the worst these days. If they hold on to the money for more than a year and then you file they will pay interest ion it and that could be the reason why there is a regulation about padding your deduction to get a use check.
But there is another thing. If you are a taxpayer working at least somewhat regularly for a company that is going to get a W-4 and give you a W-2, the W-2 is due by 2/1. If you file right away you get your check quick and I mean I got them in like four weeks. They don't pay any interest unless it is over a year so you got nothing to gain letting them use your money.
So people are stupid and lazy and wait and wait to file and then when their checks start coming in September
Income tax refund mater more on the filer than the tax rate.
Damn.
On Thursday, May 16, 2019 at 11:38:14 AM UTC-4, Bill Sloman wrote:
On Thursday, May 16, 2019 at 10:32:33 PM UTC+10, tra...@optonline.net wrote:
On Thursday, May 16, 2019 at 12:19:00 AM UTC-4, Bill Sloman wrote:
On Thursday, May 16, 2019 at 3:39:59 AM UTC+10, tra...@optonline.net wrote:
On Wednesday, May 15, 2019 at 12:11:24 PM UTC-4, Bill Sloman wrote:
On Thursday, May 16, 2019 at 1:23:19 AM UTC+10, tra...@optonline.net wrote:
On Wednesday, May 15, 2019 at 12:59:17 AM UTC-4, Bill Sloman wrote:
On Wednesday, May 15, 2019 at 6:18:35 AM UTC+10, tra...@optonline.net wrote:
On Tuesday, May 14, 2019 at 12:34:30 PM UTC-4, DecadentLinux...@decadence.org wrote:
trader4@optonline.net wrote in
news:0d0922f6-8083-4d99-9ea3-b92ca011c40a@googlegroups.com:
That may be from the link I cited, but what has it got to do with the position from 2003 - after the US invasion - to 2007 when Dubbya had to push up the occupying force (the surge) to control the insurrections that were going on then?
Nothing of course, because we're talking about how Obama let victory turn
into disaster starting in 2010, 2011.
On Thursday, May 16, 2019 at 10:24:09 PM UTC+10, tra...@optonline.net wrote:
On Thursday, May 16, 2019 at 12:13:19 AM UTC-4, Bill Sloman wrote:
On Thursday, May 16, 2019 at 3:31:27 AM UTC+10, tra...@optonline.net wrote:
On Wednesday, May 15, 2019 at 12:00:24 PM UTC-4, Bill Sloman wrote:
The point I've been making all along was that the retreat from Irak was forced on George W Bush around 2004, pretty much as soon as it became obvious that Irak needed a bigger occupying army than the US could afford..
That's another lie, as evidenced by the SURGE, which worked.
The surge worked in the sense that it reduced the insurgencies that were active at the time to manageable proportions.
No shit Sherlock, like I said, Bush had it won,
The US Army beat the Iraqi Army, and to that extent, Bush had won the first round.
To win the country he had to occupy it with enough troops to maintain control - the Joint Chiefs of staff had told him he'd need 300,000 troops, and he hadn't believed them. It took a couple of years for him to admit that they'd been right, and negotiate a gradual withdrawal.
then Obama showed up and let it all go straight into the toilet!
You do seem to want to believe that's what happened
In reality the withdrawal was negotiated by Dubbya, and continued on his plan after Obama took office.
Irak may have gone down the toilet after ISIS moved in in 2014, but that was a lot later, and Obama didn't have anything to do with the mess in Syria out of which ISIS erupted into Irak.
He even sat by and watched as ISIS drove convoys of lethal US weapons, tanks, > humvees, over to Syria!
He had a place on the Syria/Irak border where he could sit and watch?
Satellite surveillance can be effective, if you know what you are looking for.
There's a lot of desert up there, and a military convoy doesn't exactly fill it.
Are you gonna tell us Bush would have sat there on his ass like that?
So Dubbya also had a convoy-watching hide on the Irak-Syria border?
Grow up. Dubbya wouldn't have been able to anything either
Was Obama totally feckless or did he want to arm ISIS? Those are the
only two choices.
They may be the only two choices that you can imagine, but somebody with a better grasp of reality - pretty much anybody else - would realise that Obama wouldn't have been the guy that might have observed the convoys, and whoever did would have had to push the observation a long way up the command tree before it could get to anybody who could do anything about it, and by that time the convoy would have been out of Irak and under cover in Syria.
snipped the rest of the same old repeated idiocies
--
Bill Sloman, Sydney