Supporting The Troops (Page 3)

Coffrey: Well you said Obama didn't support the troops because of reducing combat pay, which was in the NDAA, which could only be sent to the president if the majority of congress voted yes on it. Thus, by the same criteria you base Obama's contempt for the military can also be applied to the majority of congress, republicans and democrats alike.

davidk14: .

Coffrey,


You need to read a bit further...

Military Pay and Benefits

Amendments made to the bill following its passage include a 1.6 percent pay increase for all service members, and an increase in military healthcare enrollment and copay fees. The changes were unanimously endorsed by the Senate Armed Services Committee.[9]

Can you point to the part in the NDAA of 2012 where you are quoting from?

.

Coffrey: Division A, Title VI, Subtitle B, Section 616

http://www.govtrack.us/congress/bills/112/hr1540/text

davidk14: .

From Section 616


Authorizes full hostile fire and imminent danger
pay when eligibility is based on actual exposure to
hostile fire or a hostile mine explosion.


And what are you complaining the meaning of this Coffrey?

.

Coffrey: I'm not. I'm just saying that saying Obama doesn't support the troops because of this, you have to also say that about every congressman and congresswoman who voted yes on that bill as well.

davidk14: .

I'm not sure of what you are talking about. You bring up the NDAA of 2012 for some reason saying something about what?



Lets try this....

Obama is not US military friendly.

Agree or disagree? And why.

.

Coffrey: I honestly don't know. I mean, it all depends on what you think is good or bad for the military. Not that I am particularly interested in whether he's for or against them because I think there are much bigger issues, but based on what I know is he's not particularly military friendly because he is keeping soldiers in harm's way with no chance of "winning" and winning isn't even defined. The only reason why he isn't worse than Bush on this is because Bush started these conflicts. Oh almost forgot, he did repeal DADT, which gives him a bump but still keeps them in Afghanistan and Iraq for no fucking reason whatsoever.

Now I want to ask you that same question.

davidk14: .

I do not believe that the military has respect for their commander in chief. I agree we should pull out of Afghanistan even though there will be a terrible cost the Afghans will pay. We pulled out to soon from Iraq before that job was done. The exit strategy is as important if not more important than the strategy that got us there.

Now there is the Pakistan issue and that is not being handled properly which is affecting our military.

.

Coffrey: I don't know if I would use the word respect because, but they definitely don't have to like him. For instance, a marine was discharged dishonorably because he said disparaging things about his commander in chief, I think that is pretty goddamn appalling. A stupid move but nothing to be discharged over.

What was the job in Iraq? Or in Afghanistan? Or Pakistan?

davidk14: .

Coffrey,

What was the job in Iraq? Or in Afghanistan? Or Pakistan?

Iraq = oil
Afghanistan = Russia
Pakistan = nukes

And anything else you want to believe.

.

Coffrey: I'm saying our presence in those countries isn't legitimate. Afghanistan was for a while but it hasn't been for some time now.

Are you saying that invading a country for its oil is something that we should do?

davidk14: .

Coffrey said:

Are you saying that invading a country for its oil is something that we should do?

David responds:

1973

.

Coffrey: Bitchin' year. So do you think that is something we should do?

davidk14: 1973....

Yom Kipper War....Israel was attacked...United States supported Israel....Arab countries shut off oil to the US....Gas shortage...

I don't know if you were even alive yet, I was 20. I remember getting up early and getting in line to get gas...$3 worth and that was it. Then is got worse and you had to use odd and even days....then...

The US told Saudi Arabia to turn on the oil or we would consider their refusal as a National Security issue and invade them and take their oil.

The gas has never been shut off since. Just the threat is enough. Iraq was about human rights and not oil. We never took a drop....even as of today...of oil from Iraq and I challenge anyone to prove otherwise. We should have at least to pay for the war for ridding them of Saddam.
Afghanistan was / is about the Taliban. And Pakistan is about nukes.

.

Coffrey: Iraq was about human rights? Why invade Iraq and not the Congo or North Korea or Darfur? And isn't it a little convenient that after the US took over the country, the parliament that was elected then gave up 1/3 of their state-run oil fields in no-bid contracts with US oil companies that contributed to Bush's administration?

Why are we concerned about the Taliban?

I agree, Pakistan is an unstable country with nukes. But does that warrant an invasion?

jack_safa: i love the army

davidk14: .

Coffrey said:

Iraq was about human rights? Why invade Iraq and not the Congo or North Korea or Darfur?



David responds:

We should have gone into the Congo, N. Korea, Darfur, Nigeria, Uganda and Rawanda and stop the genocide. But then there are those that say the US is not the worlds police but there is no one that will stop the abuse. The UN? Ha! What a joke.



Coffrey said:

And isn't it a little convenient that after the US took over the country, the parliament that was elected then gave up 1/3 of their state-run oil fields in no-bid contracts with US oil companies that contributed to Bush's administration?


David responds:

You sure about that?


U.S. Companies Shut Out as Iraq Auctions Its Oil Fields
Dec. 19, 2009

http://www.time.com/time/world/article/0,8599,1948787,00.html




Coffrey said:


Why are we concerned about the Taliban?


David responds:

Um…well….let’s see….They supported OBL and his crew and would not turn him over for the 911 attacks. How about they are the scum of the earth. I could go on, but you might think I have something against them.



Coffrey said:

I agree, Pakistan is an unstable country with nukes. But does that warrant an invasion?


David responds:

Well, if the current government goes the way of the Taliban, you will have wished the US had gone in and taken control of their nukes.


You have not mentioned Iran. If they get a nuke, they will use it.

.

Coffrey: Well after we took over this major huge threatening monolithic country.......... in 3 weeks it was soon afterwords with the no bid contracts. But yeah, you're right, they were cancelled in 2008. Think of it as trying and failing, but it shows you what is going on.

With the taliban, yeah, I agree, they're shady motherfuckers. But that's invading New York to get rid of the five families. I think you'll agree, it would be a boneheaded move.

I haven't mentioned Iran because there is no indication that they'll use it. It's kind of like saying that one kid on the playground who talks a lot of shit about another kid on the playground will eventually bring a gun to school and kill him. Also Iran isn't some sort of terrorist government or anything, if they nuke us, that's the end of their lives and they know it. Mutually assured destruction. I think we need to worry less about governments using nukes and more about rogue organizations somehow getting those nukes

Bullion80: The sooner Iran gets the nuke, the more stable the region will become. Watch the zionist's backpedal rapidly and the media turn their attention elsewhere. Davidk14 is a brainwashed patriot who feeds of propaganda... he even quoted it himself when you used a time magazine link.. say no more.

davidk14: .

bullion80,

The sooner Iran gets a nuke, the sooner Israel will destroy Iran with the help of the US and many others bombing the crap out of Iran. Your comments are in support of a terrorist regime who supports terrorism which would actually use a nuke as a form of terrorism. Millions would die for those that believe that death is better than life.

.

Bullion80: Davidk14, When you make such absurd statements it is of paramount importance that you back it up with facts otherwise you are just regurgitating the lies and deception that the mainstream corporate media peddle, along with your zionist backed puppet government.

Mark my words, There is no evidence that Iran are a terrorist regime. I challenge you to go and listen to Ahmedinijads speech at the UN assembly in NYC last week, and also the interview on aljazeera the other day. Go to the source, don't spew propaganda mate

davidk14: .

bullion88 said:

There is no evidence that Iran are a terrorist regime.


David responds:




David apologizes and continues:

Besides Iran supporting Hamas and Hezbolla and other terrorist organizations, here is just one of thousands of articles that quote the Iran Supreme leader...




Iran's supreme leader orders fresh terror attacks on West


Iran's Supreme Leader has ordered the country's Revolutionary Guards to intensify its campaign of terror attacks against the West and its allies in retaliation for supporting the overthrow of President Bashar al-Assad in Syria.

http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/worldnews/middleeast/iran/9490878/Irans-supreme-leader-orders-fresh-terror-attacks-on-West.html

Notice the words, "...ran's Supreme Leader has 'ordered' the country's Revolutionary Guards to 'intensify' its campaign of terror attacks against the West and its allies..."




Do you want more evidence, just type into google or any search engine "iran is a terrorist regime" and dozens upon dozens of pages loaded with web-sites with documented quotes from the Iranian mullahs and president.


David continues:

bullion80,

Exactly, how long have you been on wire? We have been debating Iran and other Middle Eastern countries for years. Thousands of entries by dozens of people have batted around this topic and you come in and try to tell us that Iran is NOT a terrorist regime? It's been proven over and over and over. You need to keep up.

Pleeeez....


.

Comrade_: I for one find it neat that Davidk ended his pro-bomb-dem-all-to-smithereens speech by saying "millions would die for those that believe that death is better than life. "

Comrade_: Let me save you all some time and just type what he'd respond:

Jack Ethan says "I for one find it neat that Davidk ended his pro-bomb-dem-all-to-smithereens speech by saying "millions would die for those that believe that death is better than life. "

David reply:
(insert link that has nothing to do with the topic, but slyly call it 'proof' )

davidk14: .

If's interesting that Jack always has a spin.

Here is the spin on your spin.

IF the Israeli's attack Iran to stop them from using a nuclear weapon, the death toll might be a few thousand....at most...and collateral damage held to a minimum.

IF Israel allows Iran to develop a nuclear bomb, and IF Iran uses the nuke on Israel as they have said they would, MILLIONS of Jews would die as well as most of the millions Palestinians.

Now, which scenario would you prefer?

To stop either from happening, Iran must stop enriching immediately and allow the IAEA to enter all sites to verify that Iran IS NOT continuing their enrichment.


Simple.

.