Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
Lying to go to war (no WMDs ever found), with fabricated, bogus evidence of WMD activity was a coverup for the Bush administration being CLUELESS on how to address the entire domestic agenda. Crime, health care, economy, infrastructure, education, ...you name it. They were clueless. Easier to create an enemy and go to war, drop a trillion dollars fighting smoke with bullets. Those sovereign nations posed no imminent threat to us and we were not provoked by them, so there was no justification to attack them. To create one just underlines the pathetic nature of the Conservative agenda. Absolutely shameful! This is what we are trying to recover from today: the Conservative Dark Ages. A warmongering president? You bet. An incompetent village idiot to boot. Supported by a band of regressive dimwits. Bush's presidency was an utter failure and the conservative party exposed as complete and total frauds.
Thank God, President Obama is on the case methodically unraveling this Republican mess.
Iraq was as compliant as any belligerant dictatorship. And as compliant as some of our allies (Israel). There was no reason to invade and occupy Iraq on that basis. Bush and his cheerleaders have the blood of 100,000 innocent Iraqis and 4500+ American military members on their hands, plus $trillions in debt for no worthwhile outcome. None of that was justified by one belligerant dictator.
"...as compliant as any belligerant dictatorship"?
What use is that?
"Declares that, upon official notification by Iraq to the Secretary-General and to the Security Council of its acceptance of the provisions above, a formal cease-fire is effective between Iraq and Kuwait and the Member States cooperating with Kuwait in accordance with resolution 678 (1990);"
How many of your children and/or innocent members of your family would you be willing to pay for this allegedly acceptable cost of this supposed big win?
How many millions have died because Carter allowed our military ally (Iran) to become an Isamo-fascist theocratic war mongering terrorist state hell-bent on developing a nuclear arsenal? The Afghan-Soviet War, the Iran-Iraq War, the Gulf War and both current wars are all the direct result of us not having a presence in Iran.
Location: By the sea, by the sea, by the beautiful sea
68,329 posts, read 54,389,283 times
Reputation: 40736
Quote:
Originally Posted by momonkey
How many millions have died because Carter allowed our military ally (Iran) to become an Isamo-fascist theocratic war mongering terrorist state hell-bent on developing a nuclear arsenal? The Afghan-Soviet War, the Iran-Iraq War, the Gulf War and both current wars are all the direct result of us not having a presence in Iran.
In a word.....................................BULL!
We had a direct presence, Ronnie RayGun sold them weapons. Nice work guys!
Location: By the sea, by the sea, by the beautiful sea
68,329 posts, read 54,389,283 times
Reputation: 40736
Quote:
Originally Posted by ZGACK
Those numbers are more than acceptable for the benefit gained: a long term military presence in the heart of the middle east. Strategically it was a big win for us.
Quote:
Originally Posted by burdell
How many of your children and/or innocent members of your family would you be willing to pay for this allegedly acceptable cost of this supposed big win?
Still no answer..............................
I guess we'll just chalk it up to the ChickenHawk philosophy: War is perfectly acceptable when others make sacrifices.
Lying to go to war (no WMDs ever found), with fabricated, bogus evidence of WMD activity was a coverup for the Bush administration being CLUELESS on how to address the entire domestic agenda. Crime, health care, economy, infrastructure, education, ...you name it. They were clueless. Easier to create an enemy and go to war, drop a trillion dollars fighting smoke with bullets. Those sovereign nations posed no imminent threat to us and we were not provoked by them, so there was no justification to attack them. To create one just underlines the pathetic nature of the Conservative agenda. Absolutely shameful! This is what we are trying to recover from today: the Conservative Dark Ages. A warmongering president? You bet. An incompetent village idiot to boot. Supported by a band of regressive dimwits. Bush's presidency was an utter failure and the conservative party exposed as complete and total frauds.
Thank God, President Obama is on the case methodically unraveling this Republican mess.
WAG THE DOG?
Are you serious?
Crime decreased under Bush.
Our health care is the best in the world.
The economy was fine under Bush, and we could have avoided the whole subprime melt-down if we had created an new regulator for the GSEs like Bush called for back in 2003.
"Those sovereign nations posed no imminent threat to us and we were not provoked by them, so there was no justification to attack them."
Are you aware that Clinton considered invading Afghanistan in 2000?
The former president said he authorized the CIA to kill bin Laden and overthrow the Taliban in Afghanistan after the bombing of the USS Cole in 2000, but the action was never carried out. Clinton said that was because the United States could not establish a military base in Uzbekistan and because U.S. intelligence and law enforcement agencies refused to certify that bin Laden was behind the bombing.
He considered it, then he decided to not do it because it was too hard. Then, because we had no CIA agents in Afghanistan (CIA had a 25% attrition rate during the Clinton years), we were blind-sided by 9/11.
It's simple. You either get the job done, or you don't.
Bush did the hard stuff.
Bush did the unpopular things.
Bush kept us safe for the remainder of his presidency.
How long did it take for us to have yet another terrorist attack on US soil following Bush's departure?
In a word.....................................BULL!
We had a direct presence, Ronnie RayGun sold them weapons. Nice work guys!
Not surprisingly, you've completely missed the point. The Soviet Union didn't invade Afghanistan prior to December 1979 because we were an Iranian military ally. 1.8 million lives were lost in that war. Iran-Iraq were at peace while Iran was a military ally of the United States. That war killed 1.0 million. The Gulf War took a million lives, and we are still counting the lives lost in the two ongoing wars.
Location: By the sea, by the sea, by the beautiful sea
68,329 posts, read 54,389,283 times
Reputation: 40736
Quote:
Originally Posted by momonkey
Not surprisingly, you've completely missed the point. The Soviet Union didn't invade Afghanistan prior to December 1979 because we were an Iranian military ally. 1.8 million lives were lost in that war. Iran-Iraq were at peace while Iran was a military ally of the United States. That war killed 1.0 million. The Gulf War took a million lives, and we are still counting the lives lost in the two ongoing wars.
Location: By the sea, by the sea, by the beautiful sea
68,329 posts, read 54,389,283 times
Reputation: 40736
Quote:
Originally Posted by momonkey
WAG THE DOG?
Are you serious?
Crime decreased under Bush.
Our health care is the best in the world.
The economy was fine under Bush, and we could have avoided the whole subprime melt-down if we had created an new regulator for the GSEs like Bush called for back in 2003.
"Those sovereign nations posed no imminent threat to us and we were not provoked by them, so there was no justification to attack them."
Are you aware that Clinton considered invading Afghanistan in 2000?
The former president said he authorized the CIA to kill bin Laden and overthrow the Taliban in Afghanistan after the bombing of the USS Cole in 2000, but the action was never carried out. Clinton said that was because the United States could not establish a military base in Uzbekistan and because U.S. intelligence and law enforcement agencies refused to certify that bin Laden was behind the bombing.
He considered it, then he decided to not do it because it was too hard. Then, because we had no CIA agents in Afghanistan (CIA had a 25% attrition rate during the Clinton years), we were blind-sided by 9/11.
It's simple. You either get the job done, or you don't.
Bush did the hard stuff.
Bush did the unpopular things.
Bush kept us safe for the remainder of his presidency.
How long did it take for us to have yet another terrorist attack on US soil following Bush's departure?
Uh gee, Clinton didn't get the job done in the 3 months he had remaining in office after the Cole and Bush didn't get the job done in 8 years. And you're going to try and make the case that Bush got the job done? Sounds like BS to me.
Please register to post and access all features of our very popular forum. It is free and quick. Over $68,000 in prizes has already been given out to active posters on our forum. Additional giveaways are planned.
Detailed information about all U.S. cities, counties, and zip codes on our site: City-data.com.
Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
