- Joined
- Mar 17, 2014
- Messages
- 43,759
- Reaction score
- 10,985
- Location
- Earth
- Gender
- Male
- Political Leaning
- Conservative
This Current Occupant of the WH is an economic and foreign policy disaster. What a shame that leadership is so lacking with this President. I cannot believe he continues to have any support at all but then again that just goes to show that low information voters have no understanding of leadership, no understanding of personal responsibility, and no understanding of what it takes to manage foreign and domestic policy. I feel sorry for supporters because I tried to tell you in 2008 who you were voting for and you didn't listen. 4 million more got the message in 2012 but not enough to get rid of this incompetent. The American people and our country suffer today because of that decision
President Barack Obama vows to punish ISIS for beheading James Foley | Mail Online
I'm the one that realizes it much more than you. Which is why I've consistently said that the US should STOP advancing policies that embolden jihadist groups. How have you missed this very important premise of my chief criticisms of US foreign policy in the ME.
It is states that sponsor this terrorism. You fail to realize that. Answering the question honestly however would incriminate your position.
So if we occupied Iraq where are the U.S. owned oil wells? ISIS is thanks to Obama, Bush won the war and Obama lost the peace. That is reality.
Um, no. By China and Russia. And they'll be doing the same to the next GOPer president that tries regime change in the ME again.
And if bush hadn't lied us into the Iraq invasion, we wouldn't be facing the disease of ISIS today. They wouldn't exist. ISSIS would be a wet dream for Abu Bakr al-Baghdadi/ al Qaeda in Iraq. More than likely he would be teaching Islamic studies as a preacher in Diyala province, to the north east of Baghdad, where he was during the bush invasion of 2003.:2wave:
This is why you don't announce ahead of time when you're going to withdraw most of your forces. The only real answer to this is to send them back in.
There would've been no ISIS in Iraq had konservatives not ejaculated themselves in 2001 and put Dumbya into power, who decided to take out one of the few secular (Baathist) regimes that kept militant Islam under wraps.
No. His comments still stand and we knew OBL ws responsible within hours.
Bush won fair and square both times he ran, and Clinton decided to take out the Bathists-thats what regime change means.
Please cite when/where Clinton decided to "take out the Baathists."
Do you even know the difference between the Baath Party and ISIS, or the difference between the Baath and Shiite Islam? Can you explain it in your own words ?
I know the difference well, but feel no need to jump through your hoops.
US Conservative said:Bush won fair and square both times he ran, and Clinton decided to take out the Bathists-thats what regime change means.
Problem is Bush had nothing to do with the Iraq Liberation Act, nor British and German Intelligence, or the actual quotes of Democrats. Seems you have a very selective memory. The Reason for the invasion was in that Act as well as UN Resolution 1441
You mean the act which has this section in it?
SEC. 8. RULE OF CONSTRUCTION.
Nothing in this Act shall be construed to authorize or otherwise speak to the use of United States Armed Forces (except as provided n section 4(a)(2)) in carrying out this Act.
One wonders at the amount of brainwashing it took to the minions to get this kinda brain-dead loyalty.SAD really.
In other words, you don't know the difference, because if you actually understood something in the Wikipedia article instead of just being able to search for it,
you wouldn't have posted something this incredibly stupid. . .
Care to explain to us what "Bathists" Bill Clinton decided to "take out"? You know, none of us will take you seriously if you can't even explain your own posts
Even palin couldn't have topped that one.
Regime does not mean leader. Party membership was expected, not just by Husseins military leaders, but his civil leaders as well.
That wasn't the question. You were asked what you meant when you said "Clinton decided to take out the Bathists."
Please, explain it to us. We're all waiting. . .
You mean the act which has this section in it?
SEC. 8. RULE OF CONSTRUCTION.
Nothing in this Act shall be construed to authorize or otherwise speak to the use of United States Armed Forces (except as provided n section 4(a)(2)) in carrying out this Act.
One wonders at the amount of brainwashing it took to the minions to get this kinda brain-dead loyalty.SAD really.
I dont know what was in his head. I know he passed legislation that clearly stated Hussein had to go, followed by military strikes.
Please cite when he actually "took out the Bathists."
Which of course was superseded by the Congressional Resolution passed by a Democrat Controlled Senate in October 2002 but again what does with the fact that the Iraq Liberation Act talked about WMD as well? The Iraq Liberation act was in 1998 and the war resolution was in 2002. Same wording in both
How are you missing this? I never said he did,
I said he made regime change the policy of the US towards Iraq.
Post 758 says "Clinton decided to take out the Bathists."
If that was his policy, then why did Clinton not order an invasion to "take out the Bathists", whereas Dumbya did? Please explain.
Again I never said I could read what was in Clintons mind (probably involves strippers and cigars) but theres no need-I commented on his actions.
If you read again, you will also see that at no point did I say Clinton DID order an invasion (I'd ask you to back that claim but we both know you cant), so again, you are welcome.
I guess people believed the multitude of lies such as this one given on 1/28/03, in george the seconds State of the Union address.
"The British government has learned that Saddam Hussein recently sought significant quantities of uranium from Africa." Bush adds Saddam has "tried to purchase high-strength aluminum tubes suitable for nuclear weapons production" and has "mobile biological weapons labs."
Add that lie to all the other lies made by the other war mongers in the administration and you gotta heaping foul smelling pile of ****. That’s the germ that bore us ISSA. Not a doubt in my mind.
We use cookies and similar technologies for the following purposes:
Do you accept cookies and these technologies?
We use cookies and similar technologies for the following purposes:
Do you accept cookies and these technologies?