Dirty Harry
DP Veteran
- Joined
- Dec 17, 2009
- Messages
- 1,390
- Reaction score
- 317
- Gender
- Undisclosed
- Political Leaning
- Independent
Iraq CANNOT be reasoned with "removing a despot" logic. I, as well as most of the country, refuses to believe that conveniently the lack of WMD's turned into a war on Al-Qaeda in Iraq, as opposed to what it really was-- war hawking and political opportunism. "Well, he's killing alot of people, and Iraq wants democracy" will not phase me or anyone else with half a brain. Iraq is merely about nation building and wealth extraction, time will tell.
Now we have to deal with the monster Bush left us. :mrgreen:
It would have been real interesting to see what these neocon responses would have been had a democratic president gotten us into the Iraqi quagmire. They would have crucified him.
They most certainly are not mute. Obama is tabling troop withdraw in 2011. Thank god. It's ironic that all the fiscal conservatives are worried about is money and economics, when a vast majority of our revenue is geared towards military endeavors.
The Federal Pie Chart
Let's face it, nothing that GW Bush did or does is ever going to make you support him.
Had Bush gone fully into Afghanistan to win
you would have complained about the loss of civilian life.
He did was was politically correct
the fact is he went into Iraq with the same attitude, to protect civilian life.
He cannot win with you so why should anyone try to convince you he wasn't as bad as you believe?
The fiscal problems the government and tax payers are in are going to be much worse from entitlement spending, not military spending.
Entitlements Alone Will Eclipse Historical Tax Levels by 2052
"Fully?" So you think Bush used our presence Afghanistan as little more than a stepping stone to invade and occupy Iraq, too?
I'm not going to read what is most likely a very partisan book. I've read, from multiple accounts, the political history of afghanistan, and to state that I have no knowledge or I need to read a book when I know almost everything there is to know about Afghani history is ill-founded
Yeah, we can afford to flush several trillion dollars down the toilet on war spending.:roll:
That the one area we can spend as defined in our documents.
There is nothing about a Federal Socialist State.
Nada.
.
You've proven that you have abolutely no understanding of our constitution.You might want to read the constitution.
We the People of the United States, in Order to form a more perfect Union, establish Justice, insure domestic Tranquility, provide for the common defense, promote the general Welfare, and secure the Blessings of Liberty to ourselves and our Posterity, do ordain and establish this Constitution for the United States of America.
Only a fool could justfy wasting trillions in the phoney name of defence.
Glinda;1058490030]Let's face it, nothing GW Bush did or does is ever going to make you say **** about him. :roll:
As for myself, Mr. Bush never did anything that I found worthy of supporting. I do think he's been an entirely excellent former president, however.
Bottom line here, you're completely wrong about your insistence that no resources were diverted from Afghanistan to attack Iraq. Do you ever research the junk you spew before spewing it?
"Fully?" So you think Bush used our presence Afghanistan as little more than a stepping stone to invade and occupy Iraq, too?
Nope. Unlike some, who believe our invading forces will be "greeted as liberators," I'm realistic about wars. I recognize not only that innocent people will die, but also that you can't split up your resources and expect to achieve any sort of realistic success on two separate and unrelated fronts. You either go in with everything you've got and stay there till the job is done, or you fail.
Invading and occupying another nation that was no real threat to the US is "politically correct?" :rofl Who knew?
Riiight. That's why Bush invaded Iraq. But what about the rest of the excuses the Bush administration offered for invading Iraq?
We've got the ZOMG! Weapons of Mass Destruction! rationale, the ZOMG! Iraqi Links to Terrrist Organizations! rationale, the Combating Terrrizm! rationale, the Bringing Democracy to the Middle East rationale, the Establishing a Long-term Middle East Military Presence rationale, the Divine Inspiration rationale, the Preemption of Terrrist Ties rationale...
:doh
He can do no wrong with you, so why should anyone try to convince you he's not as awesome as you believe?
I'll tell you why. Because a closed mind is a terrible thing to have.
You've proven that you have abolutely no understanding of our constitution.
BTW, look up the word 'promote'.
It would have been real interesting to see what these neocon responses would have been had a democratic president gotten us into the Iraqi quagmire. They would have crucified him.
You know you're in trouble when Glinda thanks you. Seeing that this is totally hypothetical, we would only be worried that a Democrat would **** up the campaign.It would have been real interesting to see what these neocon responses would have been had a democratic president gotten us into the Iraqi quagmire. They would have crucified him.
During my service in the United States congress, I took the initiative in creating the internet.
Silly me...
snopes.com: Al Gore Invented the Internet
Spin that anyway you want..... they did. :lamo
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?