Iran

[MoValley John]

What does Bill Clinton receiving more deferments in the 60's than any Republican, have anything to do with Iran today?

[shocka khan]

What does Bill Clinton receiving more deferments in the 60's than any Republican, have anything to do with Iran today?

I said dems and republicans. Looks like Clinton found some sort of a dodge, not a deferment (which is just as bad) Cheney had 5. Ashcroft had 7. Paul Wolfowitz, who was a staunch supporter of the Iraq war did not have to serve, either.

I'm not a fan of the volunteer military. I also think if EVERYONE had to serve, our leaders would think twice before committing our troops as they would better remember that war is no picnic.

[shocka khan]

Thanks - but Netanyahu was right. There was a youth movement (green revolution) in Iran but the Obama administration turned it back and allowed it to be crushed.

2nd - the present upheaval lies not at Bush but Obama. From the undermining of the government of Egypt, Libya and Syria to the premature pullout of American support in Iraq and Afghanistan, then the fiasco with Ukraine has made it the world what it is.

So in paragraph one, you criticize Obama for not getting involved and in the next paragraph you criticize him for getting involved. I would hope our foreign policy would be a little more consistent as we open ourselves up for criticism when making blanket statements regards foreign policy.

Also note that your second paragraph regards Iraq is absolutely incorrect, as Al-Maliki told Bush to remove our troops by X or if there was another 'Blackwater' incident in Baghdad, he would prosecute them as war criminals. Obama tried to gain extra time after he was elected but was rebuffed by Al-Maliki. Google the Nisour Square massacre for more information.

Der Spiegel also references a news release in July of 2008 where he told Bush he wanted the troops out as soon as possible.

PS, neither Bush or Obama liked Al-Maliki.

Sorry I can't provide links I'm on a mobile device.

[MoValley John]

I said dems and republicans. Looks like Clinton found some sort of a dodge, not a deferment (which is just as bad) Cheney had 5. Ashcroft had 7. Paul Wolfowitz, who was a staunch supporter of the Iraq war did not have to serve, either.

I'm not a fan of the volunteer military. I also think if EVERYONE had to serve, our leaders would think twice before committing our troops as they would better remember that war is no picnic.

Clinton received two deferments, a ROTC dodge and several others, healso used political influence to have his packet placed in a drawer and lost.

But so what? Whether or not you support conscription, why are you bringing up deferments in a topic on Iran?

[shocka khan]

Clinton received two deferments, a ROTC dodge and several others, healso used political influence to have his packet placed in a drawer and lost.

But so what? Whether or not you support conscription, why are you bringing up deferments in a topic on Iran?

I think it should be pretty clear what the basis of my comments were, thanks for your trolling attempt, better luck next time.😜

[MoValley John]

I think it should be pretty clear what the basis of my comments were, thanks for your trolling attempt, better luck next time.😜

I think it should be pretty clear what the basis of my my comments were, thanks for your trolling attempt, better luck next time.😜

Seriously, I don't follow your line of thinking. The topic is Iran, you were commenting on foriegn policy. You spoke of Mr. Netenyahu fightin his own wars. Then, suddenly, you swerve to Republicans and deferments, and how we shouldn't have deferments.

I seriously don't get it. We don't have a draft. We finished the war in Viet Nam without a draft, both Gulf Wars without a draft and have no plans for a draft in the future. Yes, 18 year-olds must sign up for selective service, but the prospects for a draft, short of a world war, are nil. I really don't know if you don't understand what deferments were, if you don't realize that we don't have a draft, or that the last deferments were in 1971.

I get that back in the 2004 election, Democrats ran a scare campaign that if Bush were re-elected, he was going to institute the draft for the wars in Iraq, but it was nothing more than fearmongering. There was Dan Rather doing hatchet jobs on Bush and the Texas Air Guard, but for cripes sake, even those tactics were over a decade ago. Except for Hillary and Bernie, nobody running is even old enough to have needed a deferment, and Hillary is a chick. The deferment discussion should have died before the 2004 election, candidates aren't that old anymore. You are the first person that I remember mentioning a deferment since then.

I'm not trolling, I really, really don't understand.

[SB Shock]

So in paragraph one, you criticize Obama for not getting involved and in the next paragraph you criticize him for getting involved.

Because when he has gotten involved it made no sense and only affect was to destabilize. I either come to the conclusion that Obama foreign policy team is either incompetent or they have achieved their goals to create chaos.

I know that Obama claimed that Iraqi wanted all troops out - but there are stories written by the New Yorker, NY TIMES and national review that it really wasn't true. It was one thing what they were saying publically versus behind closed doors. It was a tough public relations battle - especially for Iraq. What Uraq wanted was symbolic measure that the troops were out of occupation, but where now were providing training and behind the scenes support, But ultimately Obama administration took politically stands which they knew Iraq would never accept. General Barbero talks about how our presence was a restraining influence and complained that there was a "policy vacuum and this apathy" in Obama administration and resulted the U.S. losing all leverage.

I have no doubt that everybody didn't like Al Maliki. He was no choir boy and after the US did leave he started eliminating his enemies. Ultimately this meant the sectarian violence erupted once more.

[DUShock]

[MoValley John]

I really just want to know what the whole deferment issue is all about? Trump received deferments, but upon graduating, he failed his military physical, so in his case, deferments don't mean anything, either. Nixon began his efforts to end the draft in 1969, policy was being put in place in 1971, and the draft was completely over by 1973. How something from 45 years ago is even an issue, specifically as it pertains to Iran, is beyond me. Furthermore, how from one sentence regarding Netanyahu fighting his own wars, to the next sentence, no new paragraph, to military deferments, is tough to follow.

I'm confused as to how deferments have anything to do with Iran, or if it was just a baseless, non sequitur attack on Republicans for getting deferments 40-50 years ago.

I just want him to explain his thought, all he says is that I'm trolling him.

[wufan]

I just want to see liberal nut job hottie Scalet Johannson casually squeeze her tits together while filling her mouth. And the draft sucks.

[DUShock]

I just want to see liberal nut job hottie Scalet Johannson casually squeeze her tits together while filling her mouth. And the draft sucks.

[wufan]

@DUShock: is the best!

[MoValley John]

I can get behind that non sequitur!

[ShockBand]

I just want to see liberal nut job hottie Scalet Johannson casually squeeze her tits together while filling her mouth. And the draft sucks.

Part of your request...


or...

[wufan]

I'm ready to enlist!