Republicans take the Senate

[Elwar]

Bets on the first war to be waged?

I say...at least 30,000 troops back in Iraq by summer.

Total countries attacked...at least 10 by 2016.

[P4man]

Its not like democrats where peaceniks. I lost count of how many undeclared and/or covert wars they started recently.
Anyway, I bet the new focus will be on Africa. It holds untold mineral riches, lots of warlords to do their dirty business and very weak armies.

[Elwar]

Its not like democrats where peaceniks.

I agree, but now that Republicans are in charge they don't have to fake like they are worried about the budget.

Time to ramp up the military spending. Gonna make it rain.

[Spendulus]

Its not like democrats where peaceniks.

I agree, but now that Republicans are in charge they don't have to fake like they are worried about the budget.

Time to ramp up the military spending. Gonna make it rain.

Well, maybe the use or non-use of military will begin to be somewhat logical, instead of unabashedly crazy like it has been for six years.

[Westin Landon Cox]

Bets on the first war to be waged?

I say...at least 30,000 troops back in Iraq by summer.

I doubt you're serious about this (since Obama is still the one who would need to order this, not the Senate), but in case you are:

I'm willing to bet you one bitcoin that as of June 21, 2015 (first day of Summer) there will be fewer than 30,000 U.S. troops in Iraq. We'd need to agree on some details (e.g., a mutually agreed upon source of information).

To be fair: I'd advise you not to take this bet because it's obviously not going to happen. I remember when Bush got reelected in 2004 and a lot of people were saying he'd bring back the draft. Didn't happen. And it was always obvious it wouldn't.

[jaysabi]

Bets on the first war to be waged?

I say...at least 30,000 troops back in Iraq by summer.

I doubt you're serious about this (since Obama is still the one who would need to order this, not the Senate), but in case you are:

I'm willing to bet you one bitcoin that as of June 21, 2015 (first day of Summer) there will be fewer than 30,000 U.S. troops in Iraq. We'd need to agree on some details (e.g., a mutually agreed upon source of information).

To be fair: I'd advise you not to take this bet because it's obviously not going to happen. I remember when Bush got reelected in 2004 and a lot of people were saying he'd bring back the draft. Didn't happen. And it was always obvious it wouldn't.

Interesting. Someone willing to put money behind a prediction. Seems if he doesn't take you up on it, he doesn't really believe it. I wouldn't call it a reckless prediction, just not a likely one.

[P4man]

I'm willing to bet you one bitcoin that as of June 21, 2015 (first day of Summer) there will be fewer than 30,000 U.S. troops in Iraq. We'd need to agree on some details (e.g., a mutually agreed upon source of information).

You'd have to define "troops". If you include military contractors aka mercenaries, then factor in ISIS, you would probably lose that bet.
http://www.stripes.com/news/in-place-of-boots-on-the-ground-us-seeks-contractors-for-iraq-1.301798

[Elwar]

The bet would not be a bad one to take considering I work as a defense contractor and more war for me tends to mean more money.

But I would actually pay out the bet as my reputation on here is more at stake than someone new to the site.

[arbitrage001]

Its not like democrats where peaceniks. I lost count of how many undeclared and/or covert wars they started recently.
Anyway, I bet the new focus will be on Africa. It holds untold mineral riches, lots of warlords to do their dirty business and very weak armies.

Exactly.

Not sure there is a difference between the two parties anymore.

[solid12345]

The Democrat party voted for the Iraq war all the same as the Republicans did, and the rank-and-file dems had access to the same intelligence files as Bush did.

[Spendulus]

The Democrat party voted for the Iraq war all the same as the Republicans did, and the rank-and-file dems had access to the same intelligence files as Bush did.

Let's get real, shall we?

1.  Party affiliation of POTUS during WW1.  D.
2.  Party affiliation of POTUS during WW2.  D.
3.  Party affiliation of POTUS during the Korean war.  D.
4.  Party affiliation of POTUS during the Vietnam war. D.

I guess "get real" means trying to think things out from facts, or better still, from first premises, and not just spouting a party line spin.

[Lethn]

As usual Americans even in this forum actually think that the Democrats and Republicans believe in different things when in reality the only thing they disagree on is how to achieve their goals and a few social issues.

[jaysabi]

The Democrat party voted for the Iraq war all the same as the Republicans did, and the rank-and-file dems had access to the same intelligence files as Bush did.

Let's get real, shall we?

1.  Party affiliation of POTUS during WW1.  D.
2.  Party affiliation of POTUS during WW2.  D.
3.  Party affiliation of POTUS during the Korean war.  D.
4.  Party affiliation of POTUS during the Vietnam war. D.

I guess "get real" means trying to think things out from facts, or better still, from first premises, and not just spouting a party line spin.

No, clearly "get real" means misconstrue as meaningful historical coincidence, and ignore all historical context so you can attempt to prove a shallow point.

[RodeoX]

I hope the republicans are ready to handle leadership. All I have seen them do so far is say NO to everything they hear. That does not work when you are in the majority. Let's see.

[Westin Landon Cox]

I'm willing to bet you one bitcoin that as of June 21, 2015 (first day of Summer) there will be fewer than 30,000 U.S. troops in Iraq. We'd need to agree on some details (e.g., a mutually agreed upon source of information).

You'd have to define "troops". If you include military contractors aka mercenaries, then factor in ISIS, you would probably lose that bet.
http://www.stripes.com/news/in-place-of-boots-on-the-ground-us-seeks-contractors-for-iraq-1.301798

I agree "troops" is ambiguous. I hoped to be clear by saying "U.S. troops." I mean members of the US armed forces who are there under orders from the U.S. federal government. I'm not counting contractors or Americans who (for private reasons) go to fight for or against ISIS. I'm doubtful that including contractors would get the number to 30,000, but it gets more difficult to count the numbers.

[Westin Landon Cox]

The bet would not be a bad one to take considering I work as a defense contractor and more war for me tends to mean more money.

But I would actually pay out the bet as my reputation on here is more at stake than someone new to the site.

Well, I'll leave it up to you. I don't spend much time on the forum, but if you decide to take me up on it, post it on the thread and I'm sure I'll notice within a few days. There's no reason for you to trust me not to pull a "Matthew N. Wright" on you, so you're welcome to suggest someone reputable as an escrow. We could make a 2-of-3 address and both put 1 bitcoin there now. Once June 21 comes, it's likely that it will be obvious to both of us who has won and we wouldn't need the escrow to decide.

In case my offer seems mean-spirited, it isn't meant to be. I can understand what it's like to be disappointed in election results. After Obama was reelected I did a lot of predicting of economic disaster that was, in retrospect, exaggerated. I guess I'm glad I didn't make any bets based on those predictions in November 2012.

I have mixed feelings about these election results. It's nice to see Obama get rejected, and a relief to think he might have trouble getting the worst kinds of Supreme Court nominations through. (He'll have to find a stealth Souter type.) On the other hand, I'm more of a small-government-Tea-Party guy myself, and the Republicans fought us much harder and dirtier than they ever have or would to Democrats.

[Chef Ramsay]

Whether or not the republicans (I voted for them) do what they're supposed to, it's nice to see the people thumb their nose at Obama and the lefty progressives. I work in a sea of leftist drones so I'm in my glory.

[Spendulus]

The Democrat party voted for the Iraq war all the same as the Republicans did, and the rank-and-file dems had access to the same intelligence files as Bush did.

Let's get real, shall we?

1.  Party affiliation of POTUS during WW1.  D.
2.  Party affiliation of POTUS during WW2.  D.
3.  Party affiliation of POTUS during the Korean war.  D.
4.  Party affiliation of POTUS during the Vietnam war. D.

I guess "get real" means trying to think things out from facts, or better still, from first premises, and not just spouting a party line spin.

No, clearly "get real" means misconstrue as meaningful historical coincidence, and ignore all historical context so you can attempt to prove a shallow point.

Huh?  The basis of the argument was Repubs not Dems are Warniks, right?

Fraid I am not seeing evidence to support that.

[Gumbork]

Bets on the first war to be waged?

I say...at least 30,000 troops back in Iraq by summer.

Total countries attacked...at least 10 by 2016.

Congress actually has zero control over the military. The closest thing they have to control is to cutoff the military's budget (or to shrink it) however this would only bring the troops home, not deploy them overseas

[Swordsoffreedom]

Bets on the first war to be waged?

I say...at least 30,000 troops back in Iraq by summer.

Total countries attacked...at least 10 by 2016.

Well Iraq feels like old news but they are hunting for ISIS off to Syria as well
War war war fund time.
And Canada gets its pipeline