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.
I'm in full favor of killing dictators and stopping genocide, but I don't want another Iraq type situation on our hands. It's too expensive and I don't want to lose more troops.
Most people are hypocrites frankly, the Conservatives are against it because it makes Obama look bad and they want to use it to impeach him, and I'm saying this as a Conservative myself. I don't like Obama much either but at least I can say I'm not going to be a hypocrite about it.
Liberals are going to be hypocrites too, just watch most of them support this and the main stream media (which of course has a liberal bias) is going to paint it in favor of getting involved, which we will. If Bush was doing this they would be against it too.
Really if you want the honest cold truth of it all, most people were only against the war and Bush because everyone else seemed to be. It was the "cool" thing to do, the media and celebrities promoted this idea, it was literally everywhere. And so everyone bought into it, especially younger people . In reality most of these people couldn't care less about it.
Everyone knows I'm right about this even if they refuse to admit it.
Bots defending Obama don't even mind sounding like Rumsfeld, redux.
You couldn't make this up.
Both democrats and republicans supported the invasion of Iraq on the basis that they were mass manufacturing WMDs, and they had a past history of using them militarily. The Bush administration made the case that Iraq was in partnership with Al Quaeda in doing so. The CONTROVERSY was that the UN weapons inspectors reported that there were no WMDs in the country. They had spent nearly a decade cleaning them out after the 1st Iraq war, and then we bombed Iraq again in 1998 to take out the facilities that the UN wasn't allowed to search, but were identified by Saddam's son-in-law--the one who defected to the west and was IN CHARGE of the Iraqi WMD program. As it turns out, our administration lied and the UN was correct--there were no militarily significant WMDs left. There was also no clear and strongly organized link to al Quaeda, although some of them were certainly in the country. THOSE were the controversies. When Congress voted to go to war, they did it based on completely fabricated intelligence reports.
That isn't the case this time. We have independent confirmation from the intelligence of numerous countries and NATO that Assad is stockpiling WMDs, and that he's behind using them. There is no such controversy now.
I'm in full favor of killing dictators and stopping genocide, but I don't want another Iraq type situation on our hands. It's too expensive and I don't want to lose more troops.
Most people are hypocrites frankly, the Conservatives are against it because it makes Obama look bad and they want to use it to impeach him, and I'm saying this as a Conservative myself. I don't like Obama much either but at least I can say I'm not going to be a hypocrite about it.
Liberals are going to be hypocrites too, just watch most of them support this and the main stream media (which of course has a liberal bias) is going to paint it in favor of getting involved, which we will. If Bush was doing this they would be against it too.
Really if you want the honest cold truth of it all, most people were only against the war and Bush because everyone else seemed to be. It was the "cool" thing to do, the media and celebrities promoted this idea, it was literally everywhere. And so everyone bought into it, especially younger people . In reality most of these people couldn't care less about it.
Everyone knows I'm right about this even if they refuse to admit it.
Congress voted on Iraq but there was very little debate, different time and place, much pressure because of 911 but really no excuse for the lack of scrutiny. This is light years from the total effort of Iraq but public debate on these types of efforts that are not related to immediate national security are a good thing. People opposed Iraq not because it was the cool thing, but because our elected representatives failed us in an ill conceived war.
There are some interesting splits on this from the typical party lines but most are opposed, some republicans are in favor some democrats are against that 's the way it should work,
let them make their decision and put their name on a vote.
I'm in full favor of killing dictators and stopping genocide, but I don't want another Iraq type situation on our hands. It's too expensive and I don't want to lose more troops.
Most people are hypocrites frankly, the Conservatives are against it because it makes Obama look bad and they want to use it to impeach him, and I'm saying this as a Conservative myself. I don't like Obama much either but at least I can say I'm not going to be a hypocrite about it.
Liberals are going to be hypocrites too, just watch most of them support this and the main stream media (which of course has a liberal bias) is going to paint it in favor of getting involved, which we will. If Bush was doing this they would be against it too.
Really if you want the honest cold truth of it all, most people were only against the war and Bush because everyone else seemed to be. It was the "cool" thing to do, the media and celebrities promoted this idea, it was literally everywhere. And so everyone bought into it, especially younger people . In reality most of these people couldn't care less about it.
Everyone knows I'm right about this even if they refuse to admit it.
Of course you're right. But please don't let it go to your head.
Goodnight = "People opposed Iraq not because it was the cool thing, but because our elected representatives failed us in an ill conceived war."
BS. Opposition to the Iraq war was demonstrably partisan:
Quote:
While there are protests against intervention in Syria, in general the movement seems to be a lot weaker under Obama. If you guessed that this had something to do with the fact that Obama is a Democrat, you'd be correct!
...The percentage of Democrats attending anti-war protests collapsed at the end of 2008, and in early 2009.
As Democrats are the biggest block of any of these groups, this desertion of the Democratic party was the major blow.
The role of the military is to act as an extension of that nations foreign policy when peaceful means fail. National guard and the militia protect the homeland.
You need to go read our founding documents, and the views of our founders. If you were alive in those days, and muttered such nonsense, they'd have thought you a British spy and shot you. To begin with, the founders were against even the existence of a standing army, let alone dispatching that army around the world, enforcing "policies". The task of the military of the United States of America is national defense ... PERIOD. The idea that their role is to serve as an "extension of foreign policy" which is crafted and designed to enrich globalist gangsters is PREPOSTEROUS.
In 3 years John Kerry is going to be proclaiming how he was against this and all wars and that he knew this was a terrible idea all along.
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.
