Politics

[phgreek]

The rest of his statement is important.


I would think that it is right to re-evaluate how we are combating them, since the Iraq army has proven to be worthless. We were counting on the Iraq army to actually, you know fight. We spent about $25 Billion on training their army as of the end of 2014, and they are worthless.

Maybe so. I just know the response from the pentagon wasn't receptive.

As for expenditures...shocker...Because we did it wrong...all indications were that the people with experience circa 2008 were driven out, because we weren't there refereeing the factions and supporting an experience based leadership. The "leaders" were basically political appointees. And 25 Billion to train people off the street is probably not going to get it done...it isn't a money issue, its a time/experience issue. They'll fight if they are supported.

 

[pkt77242]

They don't have a finalized plan, according to the POTUS, so what are they re-evaluating?

Here is a quote from the article that you linked.

"We don't yet have a complete strategy because it requires commitments on the part of the Iraqis," Obama said during concluding remarks at the G7 conference in Germany, citing recruitment as a key stumbling block facing the central government in Iraq.

Our previous strategy was having the Iraq army fight ISIS, well it turns out that the Iraq army looks much like the French army during WWII. So yeah, we don't have a strategy because our last one failed miserably.

Unfortunately I do think that that plan will include much of the same.

"We want to get more Iraqi security forces trained, fresh, well equipped, and focused," Obama said. "We're reviewing a range of plans for how we might do that, essentially accelerating the number of Iraqi forces that are properly trained and equipped and have a focused strategy and good leadership."

Sadly the truth is that all the training in the world isn't going to make the Iraqi military fight.

 

[phgreek]

It's revisionist history for Rumsfeld to say "I knew it wouldn't work all along." And the withdrawal was also the Bush Administration's timeline.

At what point do we stop trying to install governments in the Middle East? We often end up fighting the very people we have previously aided.

point 1...agree

point 2...disagree. Mr. Bush may have put a target timeline, but he also recognized that we needed residual forces, and all but predicted what we have today if we didn't make that a priority.

 

[phgreek]

"If his mama calls him Bruce, Imma call him Bruce."

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=MQpl7AxSgsE

 

[Wild Bill]

Here is a quote from the article that you linked.



Our previous strategy was having the Iraq army fight ISIS, well it turns out that the Iraq army looks much like the French army during WWII. So yeah, we don't have a strategy because our last one failed miserably.

Unfortunately I do think that that plan will include much of the same.



Sadly the truth is that all the training in the world isn't going to make the Iraqi military fight.

Dead on here. Simply assume they are cowards and move forward with a plan.

 

[IrishJayhawk]

point 1...agree

point 2...disagree. Mr. Bush may have put a target timeline, but he also recognized that we needed residual forces, and all but predicted what we have today if we didn't make that a priority.

Obama wanted to keep a residual force of 5-10K troops, but the Iraqi parliament wouldn't agree to grant our forces legal immunity in Iraqi courts.

 

[phgreek]

Obama wanted to keep a residual force of 5-10K troops, but the Iraqi parliament wouldn't agree to grant our forces legal immunity in Iraqi courts.

I already had this discussion...

First, 5-10K troops was too few, but would have helped...

second...I think we are pretty confident that, behind the scenes, Iraqi leadership wanted the Forces but were hesitant based on how it looked to their people. Suffice it to say I believe it most certainly could have gotten done had it been given the priority Military folks said it needed (and Mr. Bush).

 

[IrishJayhawk]

I already had this discussion...

First, 5-10K troops was too few, but would have helped...

second...I think we are pretty confident that, behind the scenes, Iraqi leadership wanted the Forces but were hesitant based on how it looked to their people. Suffice it to say I believe it most certainly could have gotten done had it been given the priority Military folks said it needed (and Mr. Bush).

Sorry to rehash. It's obviously incredibly complex. It's tragic to me that we continue to fight people we have previously backed. At some point, it's up to the region to take care of things. It feels like the only thing we haven't tried is staying out of it.

 

[GoIrish41]

It feels like the only thing we haven't tried is staying out of it.

This

 

[Ndaccountant]

Sorry to rehash. It's obviously incredibly complex. It's tragic to me that we continue to fight people we have previously backed. At some point, it's up to the region to take care of things. It feels like the only thing we haven't tried is staying out of it.

I agree with the bold.

That said, we have, as a nation, put ourselves out there time and time again fighting for people who cannot fight for themselves. If there were crimes against humanity, we stepped in, for better or for worse. If we stop, we stop for good. No more, never again, no matter what is occurring, without the UN. I just don't think we, as a country, will do that.

 

[dshans]

Sorry to rehash. It's obviously incredibly complex. It's tragic to me that we continue to fight people we have previously backed. At some point, it's up to the region to take care of things. It feels like the only thing we haven't tried is staying out of it.

What is that definition of insanity bouncing about my brain pan?

 

[ACamp1900]

What is that definition of insanity bouncing about my brain pan?

I believe that would be insanity all by itself that is bouncing about your brain pan....

 

[dshans]

I believe that would be insanity all by itself that is bouncing about your brain pan....

The pan is full. The water is fine. Jump in. Join the party!





"Marco!" ––––– [Your turn]

 

[IrishinSyria]

I already had this discussion...

First, 5-10K troops was too few, but would have helped...

second...I think we are pretty confident that, behind the scenes, Iraqi leadership wanted the Forces but were hesitant based on how it looked to their people. Suffice it to say I believe it most certainly could have gotten done had it been given the priority Military folks said it needed (and Mr. Bush).

It *probably* could have gotten done, but it would have required making huge concessions to Maliki, which would have lead to the exact same problems at some point down the road. I'm sure he would have given us the SOFA we needed to stay in exchange for something, but I don't think anyone would have liked what that "something" was.

 

[ACamp1900]

The pan is full. The water is fine. Jump in. Join the party!





"Marco!" ––––– [Your turn]

Rubio?

 

[dshans]

Rubio?

A salient and (somewhat) appropriate response. Rubio is a poster boy for the Cuban American community that came to resent Kennedy and Democrats in general due to the Bay of Pigs fiasco. Much as the Democratic "Solid South" came about since Lincoln was a Republican. Dixiecrats reigned until LBJ came along upsetting the façade. Thank you George Wallace. The curtains were drawn wide.

Anyway --- think Japan and a swimming pool game.

 

[connor_in]

 

[IrishJayhawk]

Jon Stewart takes on Rumsfeld one last time.

Jon Stewart Gives Rumsfeld One Last Epic Roasting: ‘Learning Curves Are for Pussies’ | Mediaite

 

[connor_in]

‘Have you no decency?’ Dem Rep. Keith Ellison gets lib backlash for ‘disrespecting our president’ | Twitchy

After President Obama spoke to D's to try to save the trade agreement he is pushing for, Rep. Keith Ellison, D - MN, tweeted, "Now President Obama wants to talk?"

He has been getting a number of tweets back at him for disrespecting the president. My only questions is how many of these people complaining were ones that used to refer to W as Chimpy McHitler and similar terms of endearment.

 

[GoIrish41]

Jon Stewart takes on Rumsfeld one last time.

Jon Stewart Gives Rumsfeld One Last Epic Roasting: ‘Learning Curves Are for Pussies’ | Mediaite

This was classic. Stewart will be missed.

 

[pkt77242]

Connecticut's gun law linked to large homicide drop - CNN.com

 

[wizards8507]

Connecticut's gun law linked to large homicide drop - CNN.com

A LOT of inferred causality in that article. I can point you to a dozen studies that conclude exactly the opposite.

Protip: Criminals ignore laws, no matter how strict those laws are. That's what makes them criminals. The only people hurting from the oppressive gun laws in Connecticut are peaceful, law-abiding gun owners like myself.

Sent from my Samsung Galaxy Note 4 using Tapatalk.

 

[pkt77242]

 

[pkt77242]

A LOT of inferred causality in that article. I can point you to a dozen studies that conclude exactly the opposite.

Protip: Criminals ignore laws, no matter how strict those laws are. That's what makes them criminals. The only people hurting from the oppressive gun laws in Connecticut are peaceful, law-abiding gun owners like myself.

Sent from my Samsung Galaxy Note 4 using Tapatalk.

The thing is that you are talking about hardcore criminals. A guy who has hit his wife a few times, and she gets a restraining order against him, and he now goes to buy a gun, well he doesn't have black market connections, he is going to buy the gun legally, and with a thorough background check he might be prevented from buying that gun, without it, he gets to buy it. I agree that super hardened criminals might be able to buy a gun through the black market, but even then guns on the black market are crazy expensive so they have to have some money to be able do it. Now they might steal it but that is a completely different issue.

Also over the past 14 years (nationwide), about 1% have been turned down (though that is total applicants so probably a higher per person rate as many people buy multiple guns) which is over 1 million denied applications in the last 14 years. So the idea that only law-abiding citizens are harmed is not true.

 

[Polish Leppy 22]

The Fantasy That ObamaCare 'Is Working' - Forbes
The Fantasy That ObamaCare 'Is Working'

Nothing we already don't know. But hey...Obamacare is "working" because more people have "coverage", just like all kids in the US have "access" to "free education." He knows exactly what the effects have been, yet he continues to praise himself and his "signature accomplishment."

In 2013, as Obamacare’s policies were phasing in, nearly 5 million policyholders across 31 states and the District of Columbia were notified that their current coverage was being discontinued. This doesn’t include nearly 20 states that weren’t tracking these numbers so the total could have been several million more. In California alone, 1.1 million policies were canceled.

Real Clear Politics has reviewed the major polling results on ObamaCare over the last two months. It finds that the average result is that 43% of Americans support the law and 53% oppose it. A May Gallup poll found more than twice as many respondents (24%) say the law has hurt their families than say it has helped them (10%). Most say it has made no difference. This sounds a lot more like dissatisfaction with the new law.

The costs to Americans for health insurance in the new ObamaCare era are soaring across the country. The latest numbers for premium increases show the following dismal news for families. In California, approved rate increases going into effect this year are running up an average of about 10%, or five times the rate of inflation (which actually turned negative in the most recent 12 months). In Florida, 33 of 36 approved rate hikes were greater than 10%.

 

[pkt77242]

The Fantasy That ObamaCare 'Is Working' - Forbes
The Fantasy That ObamaCare 'Is Working'

Nothing we already don't know. But hey...Obamacare is "working" because more people have "coverage", just like all kids in the US have "access" to "free education." He knows exactly what the effects have been, yet he continues to praise himself and his "signature accomplishment."

In 2013, as Obamacare’s policies were phasing in, nearly 5 million policyholders across 31 states and the District of Columbia were notified that their current coverage was being discontinued. This doesn’t include nearly 20 states that weren’t tracking these numbers so the total could have been several million more. In California alone, 1.1 million policies were canceled.

Real Clear Politics has reviewed the major polling results on ObamaCare over the last two months. It finds that the average result is that 43% of Americans support the law and 53% oppose it. A May Gallup poll found more than twice as many respondents (24%) say the law has hurt their families than say it has helped them (10%). Most say it has made no difference. This sounds a lot more like dissatisfaction with the new law.

The costs to Americans for health insurance in the new ObamaCare era are soaring across the country. The latest numbers for premium increases show the following dismal news for families. In California, approved rate increases going into effect this year are running up an average of about 10%, or five times the rate of inflation (which actually turned negative in the most recent 12 months). In Florida, 33 of 36 approved rate hikes were greater than 10%.

What a shocker, that someone who works for the Heritage Foundation would write a negative story about the ACA.

So lets get to a couple of problems with this article.

1. Insurance premiums do not track to inflation, just go back over the last 20 years. So that claim is worthless.

2. He pulls out two states to try and make his point, California and Florida. So he cherry picks two states to try and prove his point but the funny thing is that 10% use to be an average rate, not an exceptionally high rate.
This link shows that in the 3 years before the ACA the average increase was 10%.
Premiums grew average of 10% before Affordable Care Act

This article shows that in the 10 years before the ACA insurance premiums increased 131% and over the next 10 years was projected to increase by 166%.
Health Insurance Premiums Up 131% in Last Ten Years | TIME.com

This article is a joke and the writer shows little knowledge of our healthcare premiums over the last 20 years (or he willfully left out information).

Here is an interesting article/polling on the ACA

Kaiser Health Tracking Poll: March 2015 | The Henry J. Kaiser Family Foundation

 

[phgreek]

Connecticut's gun law linked to large homicide drop - CNN.com

I'm not so naive as to think a decrease impossible, or even improbable. People known to have certain legal issues should not have immediate access to guns in the open marketplace. I like gun permits and training so long as they are not used to PREVENT gun ownership...I believe the abuse of permitting processes by political assholes trying to prevent gun ownership is why there is even an issue. Until that shit stops, no amount of study matters. You want to make a federal law that the state has 10 days to provide a permit disposition with documentation to support it, and an appeals process...I'll listen to permitting concerns...

As relates to the specific study:

I am skeptical because those with oversight of the study serve on "commissions" regarding gun violence, and I doubt their position on the matter is neutral. As well w/o the actual data, I am skeptical because I have no understanding of experimental design (ie criteria for data inclusion or exclusion). I can say an immediate red flag is inclusion of Maryland as a basis of extrapolating much of anything related to Connecticut.

 

[GoldenDome]

A LOT of inferred causality in that article. I can point you to a dozen studies that conclude exactly the opposite.

Protip: Criminals ignore laws, no matter how strict those laws are. That's what makes them criminals. The only people hurting from the oppressive gun laws in Connecticut are peaceful, law-abiding gun owners like myself.

Sent from my Samsung Galaxy Note 4 using Tapatalk.

Bullshit. Criminals know the laws very well and weigh opportunity costs of breaking them. The fact that Sinagpore has the death penalty for a consequence of drug dealing and the almost nonexistent drug crime is causality. If America made every crime the death penalty, there would be a significant drop in crime.

If you know how criminal minds work, you would know they are for the most part calculated. They know how many bullets in the magazine equates to how many more years in prison. If you think they don't care, you are sorely mistaken.

I own guns too btw and I think there should be stricter gun laws.

 

[Polish Leppy 22]

What a shocker, that someone who works for the Heritage Foundation would write a negative story about the ACA.

So lets get to a couple of problems with this article.

1. Insurance premiums do not track to inflation, just go back over the last 20 years. So that claim is worthless.

2. He pulls out two states to try and make his point, California and Florida. So he cherry picks two states to try and prove his point but the funny thing is that 10% use to be an average rate, not an exceptionally high rate.
This link shows that in the 3 years before the ACA the average increase was 10%.
Premiums grew average of 10% before Affordable Care Act

This article shows that in the 10 years before the ACA insurance premiums increased 131% and over the next 10 years was projected to increase by 166%.
Health Insurance Premiums Up 131% in Last Ten Years | TIME.com

This article is a joke and the writer shows little knowledge of our healthcare premiums over the last 20 years (or he willfully left out information).

Here is an interesting article/polling on the ACA

Kaiser Health Tracking Poll: March 2015 | The Henry J. Kaiser Family Foundation

You mad, bro? The fact that you don't like it doesn't mean the article is garbage or inaccurate.

What were we told about ACA?

1) If you like your plan, you can keep your plan. FALSE

2) The average family will see savings of about $2500 per year. FALSE

3) Premiums will go down. FALSE

4) The federal government can control costs. FALSE


Just like public education in the US, everyone is "covered" and it's "free." And the majority of Americans still oppose it.

 

[pkt77242]

You mad, bro? The fact that you don't like it doesn't mean the article is garbage or inaccurate.

What were we told about ACA?

1) If you like your plan, you can keep your plan. FALSE

2) The average family will see savings of about $2500 per year. FALSE

3) Premiums will go down. FALSE

4) The federal government can control costs. FALSE


Just like public education in the US, everyone is "covered" and it's "free." And the majority of Americans still oppose it.

First off, what are you 12?
1. You do realize that I poke significant holes in his article and you didn't address a single one?

2. You do realize that we have had really low premium growth on average the past few years, much lower then we had been seeing? Here you go
Lower premiums (yes, really) drive down Obamacare’s expected costs, CBO says - The Washington Post

3. The Federal government might be able to control costs if they were actually running these plans but since they are from insurance companies, how would the government control costs? If we had a single payer system then we could answer that question but under the ACA it is impossible. Nice try though.

As usual you keep changing the debate as I point out holes in your post and your articles. Keep it up.