Didn’t he say in the debates that his number one mission was to ‘protect Americans’? Well, WTF, I think the dumb shit failed in his number one priority.
Seals give him a talking point for the election and he leaves them to die? Fucker ought to be impeached, if he wins.
Because he didn’t want the attention, and thought it might blow over if he kept it on the down low.
Look at the shit storm now, he thought he could avoid it.
Americans simply don’t care about foreign policy. We re-elected George W. Bush after he started a war on a lie. I can’t believe anyone thinks this will have an actual impact on the election. As a Libertarian I hate our foreign policy so much, but I also realize Americans don’t care. The wars are fought by poor people and we have no fear of being drafted. Out of sight, out of mind.
[quote]H factor wrote:
The wars are fought by poor people.[/quote]
A myth.
The soldiers and Marines in combat units are overwhelmingly upper middle class and white. I was, by far, the poorest of the people in my unit and my mom is an accountant and my step-dad ran a small logging company on the reservation.
Service men and women are at the mercy of politicians. That’s how it is and how it will always be. We certainly don’t fight for them, that’s for sure.
[quote]thethirdruffian wrote:
[quote]H factor wrote:
The wars are fought by poor people.[/quote]
A myth.
The soldiers and Marines in combat units are overwhelmingly upper middle class and white. I was, by far, the poorest of the people in my unit and my mom is an accountant and my step-dad ran a small logging company on the reservation.[/quote]
I wouldn’t even respond to H factor, his post is absurd.
[quote]usmccds423 wrote:
[quote]thethirdruffian wrote:
[quote]H factor wrote:
The wars are fought by poor people.[/quote]
A myth.
The soldiers and Marines in combat units are overwhelmingly upper middle class and white. I was, by far, the poorest of the people in my unit and my mom is an accountant and my step-dad ran a small logging company on the reservation.[/quote]
I wouldn’t even respond to H factor, his post is absurd. [/quote]
What’s absurd about it? That we had a commander in chief start an illegal war about weapons of mass destruction that didn’t exist? That we then re-elected that guy? That the war is estimated to have costed over 3 trillion? How exactly is that absurd? The only thing absurd about it was putting the moron back into office. Now that we have a left moron instead of a right moron you think America has changed on this fact? How many Americans do you think know what Benghazi is? You’re nuts if you think this is going to have a significant impact on the election.
Mitt Romney may very well beat Barack Obama, but it won’t be because of this in the least bit.
[quote]thethirdruffian wrote:
[quote]H factor wrote:
The wars are fought by poor people.[/quote]
A myth.
The soldiers and Marines in combat units are overwhelmingly upper middle class and white. I was, by far, the poorest of the people in my unit and my mom is an accountant and my step-dad ran a small logging company on the reservation.[/quote]
Obviously not everyone is poor, but:
[quote]Most military recruits in the United States come from areas in which household income is lower than the national median, a non-profit group says.
Nearly two-thirds, 64 percent, of recruits to the military were from counties that have average incomes lower than the national median National Priorities Project said. The group looked at Department of Defense data for 2004.
According to NPP, 15 of the top 20 counties that had the highest numbers of recruits had higher poverty rates than the national average, and 18 of the top 20 had higher poverty rates than the state average.
The U.S. military has long been considered a step away from economic hardship, a trend that is apparently continuing.[/quote]
[quote]H factor wrote:
What’s absurd about it? [/quote]
Your lie that “poor people” fight our wars.
Combat arms units are overwhelmingly white and middle class.
[quote]H factor wrote:
[quote]usmccds423 wrote:
[quote]thethirdruffian wrote:
[quote]H factor wrote:
The wars are fought by poor people.[/quote]
A myth.
The soldiers and Marines in combat units are overwhelmingly upper middle class and white. I was, by far, the poorest of the people in my unit and my mom is an accountant and my step-dad ran a small logging company on the reservation.[/quote]
I wouldn’t even respond to H factor, his post is absurd. [/quote]
What’s absurd about it? That we had a commander in chief start an illegal war about weapons of mass destruction that didn’t exist? That we then re-elected that guy? That the war is estimated to have costed over 3 trillion? How exactly is that absurd? The only thing absurd about it was putting the moron back into office. Now that we have a left moron instead of a right moron you think America has changed on this fact? How many Americans do you think know what Benghazi is? You’re nuts if you think this is going to have a significant impact on the election.
Mitt Romney may very well beat Barack Obama, but it won’t be because of this in the least bit. [/quote]
The Commander in Chief does not have the authority to, “go to war,” you can thank Congress for our time in the Middle East.
Intelligence suggested WMDs were in fact in Iraq. Our Commander in Chief has to rely on intelligence when making decision since he himself does not have boots on the ground. Intel can be off. Blaming the President for this is absurd.
Wars cost money, again thank Congress for the bill.
I never said anything about things changing. Where you got that from my 1 sentence response, I’ll never know.
More people care about foreign policy than you think. Why do you think people have been bitching and moaning about the wars in the Middle East?
Never said it will impact the election. Once again, how you got that out of my 1 sentence post, I’ll never know.
The fact is you think, “poor people,” fight our battles, which is ridiculous. You also think people don’t care about foreign policy, which is ridiculous. You think former President Bush and President Obama are idiots, which is also ridiculous.
Your post was absurd.
[quote]H factor wrote:
Obviously not everyone is poor, but:
[/quote]
Your quote proves you don’t know what a “combat arms” unit is, nor who fights a war.
3/4 of the military are REMFs.
[quote]thethirdruffian wrote:
[quote]H factor wrote:
Obviously not everyone is poor, but:
[/quote]
Your quote proves you don’t know what a “combat arms” unit is, nor who fights a war.
3/4 of the military are REMFs.
[/quote]
Nice of you to cherry pick. The fact remains if wealthier people were in threat of dying you’d see them (combat troops) used less. If you’d like to change it to non wealthy people fight the wars then go ahead. The fact remains the military (as evidenced by the article) is composed of poorer people more often than not.
[quote]H factor wrote:
[quote]thethirdruffian wrote:
[quote]H factor wrote:
The wars are fought by poor people.[/quote]
A myth.
The soldiers and Marines in combat units are overwhelmingly upper middle class and white. I was, by far, the poorest of the people in my unit and my mom is an accountant and my step-dad ran a small logging company on the reservation.[/quote]
Obviously not everyone is poor, but:
[quote]Most military recruits in the United States come from areas in which household income is lower than the national median, a non-profit group says.
Nearly two-thirds, 64 percent, of recruits to the military were from counties that have average incomes lower than the national median National Priorities Project said. The group looked at Department of Defense data for 2004.
According to NPP, 15 of the top 20 counties that had the highest numbers of recruits had higher poverty rates than the national average, and 18 of the top 20 had higher poverty rates than the state average.
The U.S. military has long been considered a step away from economic hardship, a trend that is apparently continuing.[/quote]
There’s a differnce between; coming from a home with an income below the median income and coming from a poor home. Find a study that shows over 50% of military personnel come from family making below the poverty line and I’ll agree they are poor.
Lower income =/= poor
Someone now has a cable from the ambassador, showing how one month before, he said that Al-Qaeda was gathering to attack. “Al-Qaeda is amassing…”
Obama ignored it.
Obama belongs in prison.
[quote]thethirdruffian wrote:
[quote]H factor wrote:
Obviously not everyone is poor, but:
[/quote]
Your quote proves you don’t know what a “combat arms” unit is, nor who fights a war.
3/4 of the military are REMFs.
[/quote]
Never understood why people assume the poorest, dumbest, most unfortunate people end up in the combat arms. The guys I know in combat trades come from middle class families. Unskilled support trades get a lot of winners.
[quote]H factor wrote:
Americans simply don’t care about foreign policy. We re-elected George W. Bush after he started a war on a lie.[/quote]
Shut up idiot!
[quote]usmccds423 wrote:
The Commander in Chief does not have the authority to, “go to war,” you can thank Congress for our time in the Middle East.
Intelligence suggested WMDs were in fact in Iraq. Our Commander in Chief has to rely on intelligence when making decision since he himself does not have boots on the ground. Intel can be off. Blaming the President for this is absurd.
Wars cost money, again thank Congress for the bill.
I never said anything about things changing. Where you got that from my 1 sentence response, I’ll never know.
More people care about foreign policy than you think. Why do you think people have been bitching and moaning about the wars in the Middle East?
Never said it will impact the election. Once again, how you got that out of my 1 sentence post, I’ll never know.
The fact is you think, “poor people,” fight our battles, which is ridiculous. You also think people don’t care about foreign policy, which is ridiculous. You think former President Bush and President Obama are idiots, which is also ridiculous.
Your post was absurd. [/quote]
Where have I said Congress wasn’t equally responsible for the stupidity? The fact is Iraq was Bush’s war. He wanted us in, he got us in. Congress is every bit as guilty. It’s also interesting that you absolve Bush of the blame based on intelligence when Obama is being blamed in the OP and we don’t know what intelligence suggested to him. It’s also quite telling that intelligence “suggesting” WMD’s exist is a good reason to go over there.
My original intent was to show that foreign policy is not a game changer for this election and what the OP posted largely doesn’t matter for this election. If we could re-elect GWB after a catastrophe of massive more proportions than OP’s post then how could anybody be surprised if we re-elect Obama?
And you’re right it’s hard to know what to put on you when you just have a one sentence post calling someone else’s absurd. Probably a good reason not to do that in the future.
[quote]ZEB wrote:
[quote]H factor wrote:
Americans simply don’t care about foreign policy. We re-elected George W. Bush after he started a war on a lie.[/quote]
Shut up idiot!
[/quote]
You aren’t adding anything to the thread, you’re just making yourself look bad and giving people crap to have to sift through.
[quote]H factor wrote:
How many Americans do you think know what Benghazi is? [/quote]
When the press doesn’t report on it like it should… Let’s not leave that part out.
[quote]You’re nuts if you think this is going to have a significant impact on the election.
Mitt Romney may very well beat Barack Obama, but it won’t be because of this in the least bit. [/quote]
Um yeah, I would imagine the effect on the Republican base over this is causing more people to make it to the polls than on the Democrat base’s binders full of big bird.
You clearly aren’t paying attention to the Republican grass roots if you don’t think the mess in Benghazi isn’t having an impact.
[quote]countingbeans wrote:
[quote]H factor wrote:
How many Americans do you think know what Benghazi is? [/quote]
When the press doesn’t report on it like it should… Let’s not leave that part out.
[quote]You’re nuts if you think this is going to have a significant impact on the election.
Mitt Romney may very well beat Barack Obama, but it won’t be because of this in the least bit. [/quote]
Um yeah, I would imagine the effect on the Republican base over this is causing more people to make it to the polls than on the Democrat base’s binders full of big bird.
You clearly aren’t paying attention to the Republican grass roots if you don’t think the mess in Benghazi isn’t having an impact.[/quote]
Of course the press isn’t reporting on it, but that’s the press for you. They have done a shit job in covering the Afghanistan mess as well. The Republican grass roots were already pumped up to vote against Obama, this doesn’t change anything. Again, we re-elected George W. Bush after we knew about the Iraq War mess. For the most part Americans as a whole aren’t concerned with foreign policy and very few people are going to vote against Obama (who weren’t already) because of this is my only real contention.
It’s not my intention to say it’s not a clusterfuck or Obama handled it well or anything like that. Merely “Benghazi” won’t cause him the Presidency or even be a huge factor in the result. The Republican grass roots effort was plenty fine before this. It wasn’t as if they didn’t already hate the President with every fiber of their being.
