Clinton, ROTFLMAO, that picture is hilarious. That took some nerve (they do look a little embarrassed).
Does Bush Qualify???
by caspian 39 Replies latest social current
-
-
LucidSky
War is just one tool we can use. It is also a blunt tool and easily the most costly (in terms of lives and money). Clearly if we weren't directly threatened by Iraq, we should have aggressively exhausted all other options. It seemed like that was even happening... until we just up and decided to invade anyway.
Lucid
-
Clinton
I may be mistaken but wasn?t peace finally achieved with Russia when the US spent the Soviet Union into oblivion?
Now don?t get me wrong Yeru, I am not a pacifist and in the face of aggression I agree we cannot just allow a country to kill our citizens without a strong military response, such as invading Afghanistan was justified. I do not argue with that but how can you say that we were dealing with aggression on the part of Iraq? No WMD no terrorists proven to come out of Iraq, BEFORE we invaded that is. The boy was only trying finish the job his father should have done in the first gulf war without realizing that many things had changed since then and by invading Iraq we are only creating tens of thousands more terrorists in the Arab world.
Sometimes no military action is the best policy and as another example I will give you Libya, Sanctions, patience and time worked not violence.
-
Yerusalyim
I may be mistaken but wasn?t peace finally achieved with Russia when the US spent the Soviet Union into oblivion? Please don't be so naive, there was plenty of violence...though much of it was through proxies.
Now don?t get me wrong Yeru, I am not a pacifist and in the face of aggression I agree we cannot just allow a country to kill our citizens without a strong military response, such as invading Afghanistan was justified. I do not argue with that but how can you say that we were dealing with aggression on the part of Iraq? You're right, Saddam was a good guy, he didn't invade kuwait, he didn't kill up to a million of his own people, he didn't attempt to assasinate a former US President. No WMD actually, that's not true, plenty of forbidden weapons and weapons programs have been found, just not the stockpiles we were sure Saddam had...and I'm convinced most of that is now in Syria no terrorists proven to come out of Iraq Really, does the first WTC bombing ring a bell? Does financial aid to several palestinian terrorist organazation not count because they're killing Jews not americans, and there were several AQ figures in Iraq BEFORE the invasion...and Saddam gave refuge to several...but since they were jew Killers I guess it's ok then, BEFORE we invaded that is. The boy was only trying finish the job his father should have done in the first gulf war I agree, worst Foriegn Policy mistake in decades. without realizing that many things had changed since thenyep, David Kaye the "no WMD" said Saddam was more dangerous than ever and by invading Iraq we are only creating tens of thousands more terrorists in the Arab world. no, they were there anyhow...we're now giving them a chance to die in their homeland rather than coming here to die.
Sometimes no military action is the best policy and as another example I will give you Libya, Sanctions, patience and time worked not violence. Ahh, but you forget, Qaddafi only got serious AFTER we landed heavily on Iraq...and we'd run several military operations on the ground in Libya as part of the war in Iraq...most people don't realize that...the US had troops on the ground in Libya.
-
Clinton
I may be mistaken but wasn?t peace finally achieved with Russia when the US spent the Soviet Union into oblivion? Please don't be so naive, there was plenty of violence...though much of it was through proxies. Proxies Shmoxies the point is the US and Soviet Union never engaged in even one battle or dropped one bomb on each other.
Now don?t get me wrong Yeru, I am not a pacifist and in the face of aggression I agree we cannot just allow a country to kill our citizens without a strong military response, such as invading Afghanistan was justified. I do not argue with that but how can you say that we were dealing with aggression on the part of Iraq? You're right, Saddam was a good guy, he didn't invade kuwait, he didn't kill up to a million of his own people, he didn't attempt to assasinate a former US President. While that is true like you have agreed we should have done something THEN. Doing it now though is too little too late. Also what had Saddam lately to threaten the US? No WMD actually, that's not true, plenty of forbidden weapons and weapons programs have been found, just not the stockpiles we were sure Saddam had...and I'm convinced most of that is now in Syria no terrorists proven to come out of Iraq Really, does the first WTC bombing ring a bell? Does financial aid to several palestinian terrorist organazation not count because they're killing Jews not americans, and there were several AQ figures in Iraq BEFORE the invasion...and Saddam gave refuge to several...but since they were jew Killers I guess it's ok then, Forbidden weapons, yes but not the WMD and there is NO proof that ANY terrorists were coming out of Iraq before the war, also where is the "financial aid" proof? No hard evidence exists as to these claims only hearsay. BEFORE we invaded that is. The boy was only trying finish the job his father should have done in the first gulf war I agree, worst Foriegn Policy mistake in decades. At least you are objective about that without realizing that many things had changed since thenyep, David Kaye the "no WMD" said Saddam was more dangerous than ever Dangerous maybe but dangerous enough to spend hundreds of billions of dollars to invade is just too hard of a sell and nobody would have bought it if erroneous intelligence hadn't been used.and by invading Iraq we are only creating tens of thousands more terrorists in the Arab world. no, they were there anyhow...we're now giving them a chance to die in their homeland rather than coming here to die. Even if many hated the US we now gave them proof of how evil we are and helped recruit thousands more who may have been on the fence. My question is why did we invade Iraq when the public enemy number one bin laden has still not been caught and is still urging Arabs everywhere to kill Americans? bin laden was and continues to be a bigger threat than saddam ever was and yet he is not a priority Iraq is. Hmmmm....Logical thinking people everywhere are scratching their noggins over that.
Sometimes no military action is the best policy and as another example I will give you Libya, Sanctions, patience and time worked not violence. Ahh, but you forget, Qaddafi only got serious AFTER we landed heavily on Iraq...and we'd run several military operations on the ground in Libya as part of the war in Iraq...most people don't realize that...the US had troops on the ground in Libya. Qaddafi had been easing up for quite a while before we invaded Iraq as Libya was negotiating over payment to victims families regarding the lockerbie thing and that long before Iraq was even in the picture. I would love to see some proof of your claims that we had troops on the ground in Libya. This is fun Yeru. Let's see how many colors we can include in one post
-
franklin J
Who posted this thread?
Caspian? Is that really YOU posting after all this time?
Hello?
Is anyone out there?
-
ThiChi
What rubbish.....Bush will go down in history as one of our great leaders.
-
Clinton
Just like Nixon did
-
stillajwexelder
You should try democracy sometimes -- it is shit but by the hell it is the best thing we have and like it or not the electoral college of the USA voted him in -- just like some people in the UK hated Margaret Thatcher but by Christ she won THREE general elections -- must have done something right - and so does Bill Clinton - if you do not like democracy - move to IRAN
-