|
|
Joined: Sep 2006
Posts: 6,653
Hall of Famer
|
Hall of Famer
Joined: Sep 2006
Posts: 6,653 |
Since when did the UN get involved with Afghanistan?
NATO yes, but the UN has nothing to do with it.
Welcome back, Joe, we missed you!
|
|
|
|
|
Joined: Oct 2006
Posts: 17,850
Legend
|
Legend
Joined: Oct 2006
Posts: 17,850 |
Quote:
Quote:
Mac .... what do you define as winning in Afghanistan?
YT...IMO, winning in Afghanistan is to deny the Taliban, control of Afghanistan.
Quote:
The Taliban were driven out of Afghanistan in 2001 and fled to Pakistan,
Wow. We WON! Mission Accomplished back in '01. Fantastic.
So, why are we still there?
#gmstrong
|
|
|
|
|
Joined: Sep 2006
Posts: 50,419
Legend
|
|
Legend
Joined: Sep 2006
Posts: 50,419 |
You're correct.
NATO.
I mis-typed.
Micah 6:8; He has shown you, O mortal, what is good. And what does the Lord require of you? To act justly and to love mercy, and to walk humbly with your God.
John 14:19 Jesus said: Because I live, you also will live.
|
|
|
|
|
Joined: Dec 2006
Posts: 13,818
Legend
|
|
Legend
Joined: Dec 2006
Posts: 13,818 |
Quote:
Quote:
Quote:
Mac .... what do you define as winning in Afghanistan?
YT...IMO, winning in Afghanistan is to deny the Taliban, control of Afghanistan.
Quote:
The Taliban were driven out of Afghanistan in 2001 and fled to Pakistan,
Wow. We WON! Mission Accomplished back in '01. Fantastic.
So, why are we still there?
nolog...Someone is shooting at our soldiers stationed in Afghanistan...any idea who that is?
this is not 2001...is it?
...tell everyone what happened to Taliban between 2001 and 2009.
FOOTBALL IS NOT BASEBALL
Home of the Free, Because of the Brave...
|
|
|
|
|
Joined: Sep 2006
Posts: 40,399
Legend
|
|
Legend
Joined: Sep 2006
Posts: 40,399 |
Thank you for the answer mac but like a couple others I have questions.. the first isn't really a question as much as it is a statement.. I notice you don't mention capturing and/or killing Bin Laden as part of your definition of winning in Afghanistan..
Second, as Pdawg stated, are you advocating that we should have chased the Taliban into Pakistan, which would have, essentially been declaring war on yet another country? One that in many respects is a friend... not one that I would put a ton of trust in because the tend to play both sides but they do work with us sometimes.
yebat' Putin
|
|
|
|
|
Joined: Sep 2006
Posts: 15,015
Legend
|
|
Legend
Joined: Sep 2006
Posts: 15,015 |
I would put capturing and stopping the Taliban and Al Queda much like fighting gangs in the US. No matter how many you capture/kill, there will always be more to fill the voids. There is no eliminating them, the best you can hope for is to control them enough to avoid major uprisings.
We don't have to agree with each other, to respect each others opinion.
|
|
|
|
|
Joined: Sep 2006
Posts: 40,399
Legend
|
|
Legend
Joined: Sep 2006
Posts: 40,399 |
You are correct. Nature hates a vacuum.. if you run out the Taliban and don't stick around long enough to put something of substance in the vacuum then expect the worst to fill it... just like a gang, if you run out a gang and put nothing of substance in the void, another gang will move in, a new one will spring up, something will fill the vacuum.... that's nature.
yebat' Putin
|
|
|
|
|
Joined: Dec 2006
Posts: 13,818
Legend
|
|
Legend
Joined: Dec 2006
Posts: 13,818 |
Quote:
Ahh, one of "those" things.
I'll pass on the "educate yourself on the topic" suggestion, mac... I try not to deal in wacko-ology.
Quote:
Thankfully, in reality, most Americans believe capturing or killing Bin Laden is something America needs to follow through on...it is "unfinished" business, not P.R.
I'd say most Americans that believe like you don't have a freaking clue.
Please, oh .....PLEASE tell me what significance, beyond that of a "feel good" P.R. story, capturing/killing bin Laden will have (assuming that his completely irrelevant ass isn't rotting in some northern Pakistan cave right now)?
I'll tell you its SOLE significance: It'll be a singular, fleeting moment where people will go "Ah Ha! We got ya!"... and the next day a bomb will blow some kid to pieces; and then some other hummus bag will record a video laughing at us, showing how we can cut the head off but they continue on without missing a beat.
It means NOTHING. He is simply a Trophy.
prpl...if we are to use your logic, Hitler should not have been pursued to the point he took his own life, rather than be captured or killed by the Allies.
Thankfully, most Americans do not share your opinion when it comes to Bin Laden.
He is not simply a "trophy"...he continues to lead his terrorist organization, which continues to carry out attacks. Just how much command and control Bin Laden has over Al Qaeda can be debated...but as long as Bin Laden continues to cut videos reminding everyone that he is still alive, he is a problem and target for our forces.
FOOTBALL IS NOT BASEBALL
Home of the Free, Because of the Brave...
|
|
|
|
|
Joined: Sep 2006
Posts: 5,718
Hall of Famer
|
|
Hall of Famer
Joined: Sep 2006
Posts: 5,718 |
Quote:
Thankfully, most Americans do not share your opinion when it comes to Bin Laden.
Did you take a poll? 
|
|
|
|
|
Joined: Sep 2006
Posts: 28,171
Legend
|
|
Legend
Joined: Sep 2006
Posts: 28,171 |
Hitler was not pursued to the point he took his own life. He remained in power until he took his life because those around him were too loyal or too cowardly to do what was right and remove him from power so that they could stop the killing. It was only when it was inevitable that the Russians would be at his bunker within hours that he did what he should have done months prior, and captiulated. Then, rather than suffer the spectacle of being captured and tried, he committed suicide. The U.S. and Soviet Union both converged on Berlin and kept pressing the fight until German resistance collapsed... which was not until after Hitler took the coward's way out. We were not pursuing Hitler, we were fighting for unconditional surrender.
Thanks for playing, but you're completely, utterly wrong.
Lastly, if you are attempting to insinuate that capturing or killing bin Laden will have any sort effect on the continuing operations of al Qaida, then I have to conclude that you truly have absolutely no understanding whatsoever on the topic. Do you honestly believe that he hasn't already put in place a half dozen contingencies for the event of his death?
You are Wrong.
Browns is the Browns
... there goes Joe Thomas, the best there ever was in this game.
|
|
|
|
|
Joined: Sep 2006
Posts: 7,278
Hall of Famer
|
|
Hall of Famer
Joined: Sep 2006
Posts: 7,278 |
Quote:
So once again, yes, I do know. And so can you and anyone else. All you have to do is read through CIA documents, Hussein documents, testimonies from employees and leaders, etc.
You mean to tell me that those "sources" put out all the facts and all the truths?
CIA documents telling us EVERYTHING? Wow...really.
Hussein documents telling us EVERYTHING that went on? Historic...he went to his death as a result of keeping secrets...yet he documented EVERYTHING that went on.
Testimonies from people and employees? Surely none with any type of agenda. Right.
Look Phil...you seem hell-bent on thinking that I justified the Iraq war because of Iraq's involvement - or lack therof - in 9/11.
You want to believe that...you want to believe that any person who justifies the Iraq war believes that...so that you can point to all the "sources" and tell them they are wrong. "Sources" that came out AFTER the war was basically won.
Then you can sit back and play "I told you so."
I can give you a half dozen reasons why something had to be done and why someday the move to invade Iraq very well may be viewed as one hell of a strategic decision...and those reasons could be spot on or completely invalid. History will tell.
In the end - bad idea or not - something had to be done. Good, bad, or ugly...something had to be done.
|
|
|
|
|
Joined: Sep 2006
Posts: 11,465
Legend
|
|
Legend
Joined: Sep 2006
Posts: 11,465 |
Quote:
Look Phil...you seem hell-bent on thinking that I justified the Iraq war because of Iraq's involvement - or lack therof - in 9/11.
Hardly. It was you who brought up the 'we don't *really* know' in regard to Hussein-9/11.
Personally, I wouldn't have thought anyone would still be parading around that kind of nonsense. I was quite surprised when you said it.
Quote:
In the end - bad idea or not - something had to be done. Good, bad, or ugly...something had to be done.
Well, hell, then why didn't we just go ahead and invade Qatar? Turkey? Egypt? Haiti? Greenland? That would've been something, right?
To be honest ... I really don't know what to say anymore. Perhaps you're just wording things wrong ... but 'we don't *really* know what went on in regards to Hussein 9/11? Something had to be done?
These are your arguments?
|
|
|
|
|
Joined: Oct 2006
Posts: 17,850
Legend
|
|
Legend
Joined: Oct 2006
Posts: 17,850 |
umm, mac. please replace the batteries in your sarcasm detector.
you said to win we had to kick out the Taliban from Afghanistan. and you said that we kicked the Taliban out of Afghanistan (into Pakistan) in 2001. I was playing entirely on what you said. nothing more, nothing less.
#gmstrong
|
|
|
|
|
Joined: Sep 2006
Posts: 2,089
Dawg Talker
|
|
Dawg Talker
Joined: Sep 2006
Posts: 2,089 |
Mac, Al-Queda has more than enough leaders and cells to carry on with Bin Laden dead or captured.
The only way you defeat Al-Queda is to stop people joining that movement. The US military is doing a stellar job of kicking ass and taking names but large portions of the Islamic world still hates the US. That's the part that needs to chage.
|
|
|
|
|
Joined: Sep 2006
Posts: 11,465
Legend
|
|
Legend
Joined: Sep 2006
Posts: 11,465 |
Quote:
The US military is doing a stellar job of kicking ass and taking names but large portions of the Islamic world still hates the US.
This statement is dripping with irony.
|
|
|
|
|
Joined: Sep 2006
Posts: 7,278
Hall of Famer
|
|
Hall of Famer
Joined: Sep 2006
Posts: 7,278 |
Quote:
Quote:
Look Phil...you seem hell-bent on thinking that I justified the Iraq war because of Iraq's involvement - or lack therof - in 9/11.
Hardly. It was you who brought up the 'we don't *really* know' in regard to Hussein-9/11.
Personally, I wouldn't have thought anyone would still be parading around that kind of nonsense. I was quite surprised when you said it.
Quote:
In the end - bad idea or not - something had to be done. Good, bad, or ugly...something had to be done.
Well, hell, then why didn't we just go ahead and invade Qatar? Turkey? Egypt? Haiti? Greenland? That would've been something, right?
To be honest ... I really don't know what to say anymore. Perhaps you're just wording things wrong ... but 'we don't *really* know what went on in regards to Hussein 9/11? Something had to be done?
These are your arguments?
Phil,
You really should consider the entire posts I have made in this regard. You are looking at ONE sentence and declaring that the Iraq/Hussein 9/11 involvement is the only point. (Notice the word "the" there...I did not say "my".)
Sorry bud...but you DO NOT know all the facts and truths in regards to the Iraq/Hussein 9/11 involvement. No matter what you read or what you were told. I don't know either.
You only know what those people were willing to say. Maybe it IS the whole truth and nothing but the truth...maybe not.
I do not know whether Hussein was involved in the 9/11 attack...and it does not matter anymore. Hell, it did not matter to me the moment before we went to war with him either.
You keep demanding that I am parading or defending whether Hussein planned the attacks or not...and I don't care whether he had a hand in the planning or carrying-out of the attack.
Here are some of ,my thoughts:
I beleive that the documents that were made available clearly show that there was limited - if any - cooperation between Hussein and Bin Laden.
I believe it is possible that Hussein and Bin Laden may have also been very close and may have planned the whole thing together...and simply left no trail of their cooperatioin. You know...like the total lack of a trail Bin Laden has left since 9/11.
I beleive it is possible that Hussein and Bin Laden never spoke, winked, nodded, called, texted, or emailed about the attack...and Hussein found out about it just like I did.
I beleive it is possible that Bin Laden DID NOT actually plan the attack...just merely took credit for it.
You want to know why "...didn't we just go ahead and invade Qatar? Turkey? Egypt? Haiti? Greenland?"
Because they are not strategicly located in the region...and were not suspected of having WMDs...and were not commiting genocide on their own citizens...and did not ignore UN inspections/mandates...and did not invade and nearly destroy Kuwait...and did not have a sustainable country after the brutal dictator was overthrown...and we needed an excuse to respond to the attack and take the fight to those who DID plan/participate in the attack.
And it mattered/matters not whether Hussein was involved in the planning of the 9/11 attacks....just like it didn't/doesn't matter whether he had WMDs.
It was the perfect storm/political foil to show the world we were not going to take this one on the chin because...
Something had to be done.
|
|
|
|
|
Joined: Sep 2006
Posts: 50,419
Legend
|
|
Legend
Joined: Sep 2006
Posts: 50,419 |
Quote:
Quote:
Thankfully, most Americans do not share your opinion when it comes to Bin Laden.
Did you take a poll?
mac doesn't need polls .....
See, he already just "knows" ............
And if he can find a Huffington Post article .... well, so much the better ..........
Micah 6:8; He has shown you, O mortal, what is good. And what does the Lord require of you? To act justly and to love mercy, and to walk humbly with your God.
John 14:19 Jesus said: Because I live, you also will live.
|
|
|
|
|
Joined: Sep 2006
Posts: 2,089
Dawg Talker
|
|
Dawg Talker
Joined: Sep 2006
Posts: 2,089 |
Quote:
Quote:
The US military is doing a stellar job of kicking ass and taking names but large portions of the Islamic world still hates the US.
This statement is dripping with irony.
I suppose it was meant to.
It's a tough spot that the US is in but I do think there is a need to revise their strategies. The "war" was the easy part.... trying to stabilize the region is the difficult one....and some would argue impossible.
|
|
|
|
|
Joined: Sep 2006
Posts: 11,465
Legend
|
|
Legend
Joined: Sep 2006
Posts: 11,465 |
Quote:
Sorry bud...but you DO NOT know all the facts and truths in regards to the Iraq/Hussein 9/11 involvement. No matter what you read or what you were told. I don't know either
I know enough to know that he had nothing to do with the 9/11 attacks.
His relationship with bin Laden and al-Qaeda is well-documented -- he did not like them.
Quote:
And it mattered/matters not whether Hussein was involved in the planning of the 9/11 attacks....just like it didn't/doesn't matter whether he had WMDs.
It was the perfect storm/political foil to show the world we were not going to take this one on the chin because...
Something had to be done.
That's an absolute absurd opinion.
It didn't matter if he didn't have anything to do with 9/11 or didn't have WMD's?
Are you honestly saying that? Do you know how many innocent civilians have died over this? How many mothers had their sons come home in a box? Because we wanted to show the world that we're tough guys? For a 'strategic location'? Because 'something had to be done'?
That line of thinking is not only pea-brained and morally reprehensible, but sociopathic.
|
|
|
|
|
Joined: Sep 2006
Posts: 15,015
Legend
|
|
Legend
Joined: Sep 2006
Posts: 15,015 |
If all we wanted to do was show the world we are tough guys, wouldn't it have been easier and more beneficial to invade Mexico? 
We don't have to agree with each other, to respect each others opinion.
|
|
|
|
|
Joined: Sep 2006
Posts: 7,278
Hall of Famer
|
|
Hall of Famer
Joined: Sep 2006
Posts: 7,278 |
Quote:
It didn't matter if he didn't have anything to do with 9/11 or didn't have WMD's?
Are you honestly saying that? Do you know how many innocent civilians have died over this? How many mothers had their sons come home in a box? Because we wanted to show the world that we're tough guys? For a 'strategic location'? Because 'something had to be done'?
What you said in that last paragraph would apply even if he HAD planned 9/11 and if he HAD WMDs. That's why it did/does not matter.
Quote:
That line of thinking is not only pea-brained and morally reprehensible, but sociopathic.
Because YOU don't like it...but that's what happened Phil. To this point in our debate - and your insults - I have tried to explain to you why I think the decision was made.
You have been unable to separate me telling you 'why' I think it happened with your certainty that I must 'agree with' what happened.
To date in this thread, I have not posted as to whether I agree with the decision to go to war - whatever those decisions might have been. We've not been able to get that far because you are being so ridiculously unreasonable.
You are in such a hurry to show everyone how enlightened you are regarding all political matters that you have been pissed off, condescending, insulting, and arguing before the ground rules have been set.
Why do YOU think the decision was made to go to war with Iraq?
|
|
|
|
|
Joined: Dec 2006
Posts: 13,818
Legend
|
|
Legend
Joined: Dec 2006
Posts: 13,818 |
Quote:
What you said in that last paragraph would apply even if he HAD planned 9/11 and if he HAD WMDs. That's why it did/does not matter.
Willie...what you quoted..this..
Quote:
It didn't matter if he didn't have anything to do with 9/11 or didn't have WMD's?
Are you honestly saying that? Do you know how many innocent civilians have died over this? How many mothers had their sons come home in a box? Because we wanted to show the world that we're tough guys? For a 'strategic location'? Because 'something had to be done'?
willie..these are a series of "questions" that Phil is asking "you" ...
...willie, these are not "Phil's" comments agreeing with your position.
Phil made two comments in the paragraph you referrenced...
....first, concerning your opinion..phil said, "That's an absolute absurd opinion".
...and here is Phil's second comment to you..."That line of thinking is not only pea-brained and morally reprehensible, but sociopathic."
FOOTBALL IS NOT BASEBALL
Home of the Free, Because of the Brave...
|
|
|
|
|
Joined: Dec 2006
Posts: 13,818
Legend
|
|
Legend
Joined: Dec 2006
Posts: 13,818 |
Quote:
I can give you a half dozen reasons why something had to be done and why someday the move to invade Iraq very well may be viewed as one hell of a strategic decision...and those reasons could be spot on or completely invalid. History will tell.
In the end - bad idea or not - something had to be done. Good, bad, or ugly...something had to be done.
willie...yep, history will tell.
But just this past weekend, Karl Rove attempted to put further spin on the Bush decision to start a war in Iraq, writing an OpEd in the Rupert Murdoch owned, Wall Street Journal, claiming it was his (Rove's) biggest mistake was that he failed to refute charges that Bush lied us into war has hurt our country.
Rove's WSJ OpEd
I doubt that anyone will fact check Rove's OpEd, but my quick scan of the story left me with the impression that Rove is in full spin mode, with this OpEd.
There does appear to be an effort to improve the public's perception of GW Bush, attempting to improve his legacy.
I'm hopeful that more evidence will be made public, to show the extent to which the Bush admin went to, to start a war in Iraq.
But there is a lot of information available that most Americans have not considered...or have no knowledge of.
FOOTBALL IS NOT BASEBALL
Home of the Free, Because of the Brave...
|
|
|
|
|
Joined: Sep 2006
Posts: 40,399
Legend
|
|
Legend
Joined: Sep 2006
Posts: 40,399 |
Quote:
I'm hopeful that more evidence will be made public, to show the extent to which the Bush admin went to, to start a war in Iraq.
But there is a lot of information available that most Americans have not considered...or have no knowledge of.
What about the existing investigations that say he did NOT lie mac?
See that is the problem, you are hopeful that more evidence will come out but unless it supports your preconceived notion that he lied, you will not accept it. They could do 30 studies into the lead up to the war and 29 of them could vindicate the Bush Administration and 1 could find that he used information to mislead the public and you would cite that 1 as fact... because you lack any semblence of objectivity...
You have no answer for the quick change of position by the democrats on the war? So I ask you, are they weak willed hypocrits who just switched their opinions because it benefitted them publicly? I believe so...
yebat' Putin
|
|
|
|
|
Joined: Dec 2006
Posts: 13,818
Legend
|
|
Legend
Joined: Dec 2006
Posts: 13,818 |
Quote:
What about the existing investigations that say he did NOT lie mac?
DC...believe what you want
Quote:
See that is the problem, you are hopeful that more evidence will come out but unless it supports your preconceived notion that he lied, you will not accept it.
DC...you have no idea what I will accept...you "assume".
Who does the investigating does matter...Karl Rove writting an OpEd in Uncle Rupert's newspaper does nothing to change my opinion on the subject.
You might be an easy sale....I'm not!
Quote:
You have no answer for the quick change of position by the democrats on the war? So I ask you, are they weak willed hypocrits who just switched their opinions because it benefitted them publicly? I believe so...
DC...I sure do have an answer...the fact that NO WMDS were found should give everyone enough reason to rethink and change their position on the Iraq War.
The Dems believed Bush about the threat of WMDs...it was the focal point to justify starting the Iraq War. When no WMDs were found, it gave Dems, Repubs and all Americans a reason to question the Bush administration.
Quote:
So I ask you, are they weak willed hypocrits who just switched their opinions because it benefitted them publicly? I believe so...
DC..to question the Bush admin's reason for starting the Iraq War shows "weakness", in your opinion?
When the Bush administration contends that Iraq is a threat to the USA because they have WMDs...and no WMDs are found...in your opinion (DC), that means those who dare "question" the Bush admin about no WMDs being found, are "weak willed hypocrites" ?
Tell me DC...how much "strong will" does it take "for you" to send someone else's son or daughter to fight and die in the Iraq War?
FOOTBALL IS NOT BASEBALL
Home of the Free, Because of the Brave...
|
|
|
|
|
Joined: Oct 2006
Posts: 17,850
Legend
|
|
Legend
Joined: Oct 2006
Posts: 17,850 |
Quote:
You have no answer for the quick change of position by the democrats on the war? So I ask you, are they weak willed hypocrits who just switched their opinions because it benefitted them publicly? I believe so...
my personal guess is that when the full semblence of the natural resources in both Iraq and more importantly Afghanistan were revealed to the administration, they felt more compelled to stay.
longer-term (2012 elections - that's about as longterm as politicians think about), I think staying will hurt their public position more than help because it is one of the more blatant flip-flops of this administration and it will be used against them.
#gmstrong
|
|
|
|
|
Joined: Sep 2006
Posts: 40,399
Legend
|
|
Legend
Joined: Sep 2006
Posts: 40,399 |
Quote:
DC...believe what you want
I will but my opinion is subject to change based on new information, yours is not.
Quote:
DC...you have no idea what I will accept...you "assume".
Who does the investigating does matter...Karl Rove writting an OpEd in Uncle Rupert's newspaper does nothing to change my opinion on the subject.
You might be an easy sale....I'm not!
An easy sale because I believe the Silberman-Robb report? I'm not basing anything on what Rove says.. .here is the panel that worked on the Silberman-Robb report...
Charles Robb, Democratic Governor and Senator
Laurence Silberman, Appeals court judge considered conservative
Lloyd Cutler, Democratic attorney served as White House counsel to Jimmy Carter
Richard Levin, Economist and President of Yale University
John McCain, Republican Senator
Henry Rowen, expert on international security and economic development, senior fellow at Hoover Institution at Stanford
Bill Studeman, former director of NSA, retired Admiral
Charles Vest, President of MIT
Patricia Wald, Retired Circuit Court of Appeals judge, appointed by Jimmy Carter and considered a liberal democrat...
Here is where the bios came from... web page
they concluded that Bush didn't lie.. so I will tell you what you told me... believe what you want... but where is your basis for what you believe?
Quote:
DC...I sure do have an answer...the fact that NO WMDS were found should give everyone enough reason to rethink and change their position on the Iraq War.
The Dems believed Bush about the threat of WMDs...it was the focal point to justify starting the Iraq War. When no WMDs were found, it gave Dems, Repubs and all Americans a reason to question the Bush administration.
mac, the dems in congress and the senate had access to much of the information Bush did.. but you are telling me that they just believed him and parroted his comments about Iraq without doing any research of their own, they didn't talk to anybody, they just believed? If that is your argument then yes, I'd say they are weak. If they backed the intelligence and it turned out the intelligence was wrong, then fine, it was wrong.. say it was wrong, say you were wrong, say the whole thing stinks but don't go from supporting it to saying Bush lied to you... that's childish.
Quote:
DC..to question the Bush admin's reason for starting the Iraq War shows "weakness", in your opinion?
Nope, questioning those in power is always a good thing.. just bring your facts to the table.
Quote:
When the Bush administration contends that Iraq is a threat to the USA because they have WMDs...and no WMDs are found...in your opinion (DC), that means those who dare "question" the Bush admin about no WMDs being found, are "weak willed hypocrites" ?
Nope, again, questioning is a good thing.. but why do you question Bush and give a free pass to all of the democrats who said the same thing?
yebat' Putin
|
|
|
|
|
Joined: Dec 2006
Posts: 13,818
Legend
|
|
Legend
Joined: Dec 2006
Posts: 13,818 |
DC..you forgot this one...
Tell me DC...how much "strong will" does it take "for you" to send someone else's son or daughter to fight and die in the Iraq War?
Quote:
Nope, again, questioning is a good thing.. but why do you question Bush and give a free pass to all of the democrats who said the same thing?
DC...the Dems used the intell Bush gave them or provided to them.
Where did that intell come from?
Who supplied that intell to the Dems?
Last edited by mac; 07/21/10 01:24 PM.
FOOTBALL IS NOT BASEBALL
Home of the Free, Because of the Brave...
|
|
|
|
|
Joined: Sep 2006
Posts: 40,399
Legend
|
|
Legend
Joined: Sep 2006
Posts: 40,399 |
Quote:
DC..you forgot this one...
Tell me DC...how much "strong will" does it take "for you" to send someone else's son or daughter to fight and die in the Iraq War?
I didn't send anybody, I didn't have a vote. A lot of people did have a vote and they voted yes.. and a lot of them were democrats, you want to absolve them of any wrong doing though.
Quote:
DC...the Dems used the intell Bush gave them or provided to them.
Where did that intell come from?
Who supplied that intell to the Dems?
George Bush gave them the intel? The intel didn't come from the FBI, the CIA, NSA, DoD , the State Department, etc? It came from George Bush? Really?
yebat' Putin
|
|
|
|
|
Joined: Sep 2006
Posts: 28,171
Legend
|
|
Legend
Joined: Sep 2006
Posts: 28,171 |
Watched Green Zone last night... good movie.
Browns is the Browns
... there goes Joe Thomas, the best there ever was in this game.
|
|
|
|
|
Joined: Sep 2006
Posts: 40,399
Legend
|
|
Legend
Joined: Sep 2006
Posts: 40,399 |
Cool, it's out on Redbox, I need to see it.
yebat' Putin
|
|
|
|
|
Joined: Nov 2008
Posts: 13,478
Legend
|
|
Legend
Joined: Nov 2008
Posts: 13,478 |
It came from Radical RWrs. There, I said it. Glad I got that off my chest... 
There is no level of sucking we haven't seen; in fact, I'm pretty sure we hold the patents on a few levels of sucking NOBODY had seen until the past few years.
-PrplPplEater
|
|
|
|
|
Joined: Sep 2006
Posts: 11,465
Legend
|
|
Legend
Joined: Sep 2006
Posts: 11,465 |
Quote:
Why do YOU think the decision was made to go to war with Iraq?
As the old saying goes, the answer to 99 out of 100 questions is 'money'.
We went to Iraq for prospective financial reasons. Both present and future. War is very lucrative.
We thought they were pushovers. Since WWII, the U.S. has gone out of it's way to engage itself in only conflicts it thought it would easily win. Even more so after the Vietnam War.
I don't think we wouldn't if push came to shove ... but push coming to show, in real terms, hasn't happened for us in a long time. We did all we could to avoid war with the Soviets, and turn it into a spending race.
We thought Iraq would be a breeze. I don't disagree with your notion that it's a strategic area for the U.S. to control, but I reiterate my point about that line of thinking being immoral to the point of being sociopathic.
We weren't just ousting Hussein, we were destroying infrastructure, killing innocent people, and exposing our own citizens to dangers that are none of our business. For turf? That's sick, and it reeks of an empire on the brink. It's actually the definition of imperialism ... 'strategic location' = imperialism.
How would you like it if China wanted to plow through our country and oust Obama because they were fearful of his economic policies? That's pretty much what we did over there. I know it's a stretched-thin analogy, but we basically plowed through a country that we had already left hanging in the wind once.
Do you know how many people Saddam slaughtered after we shook hands with him and took off?
Iran wasn't afraid of them ... and they'd already been to war. Kuwait wasn't all that worried ... and Hussein invaded them once. What does that tell you? The only people who believed he was a legitimate threat were bureaucrats and the uniformed.
And I have no doubt that the men in charge sat down and said 'how do we sell this?' rather than 'are we sure we should do this?'
|
|
|
DawgTalkers.net
Forums DawgTalk Tailgate Forum Right Wingers at it again
|
|
