NIU007 Wrote:

TigerBlue4Ever Wrote:

NIU007 Wrote:What does that have to do with Lebanon? And Reagan didn't invade the USSR, it's a totally different situation. Reagan helped the process along. But it was Gorbachev that kicked the legs out from underneath the Soviet system, both politically and economically.

It has little do to with Lebanon, much like the events of Reagans administration have little to do with what Clinton did, you brought it up, why is it not fair for me to extend the logic?
The beauty of Reagans tactics are exactly what you said, he didn't have to invade, his policies of massive spending on our military build up forced the USRR to try and keep up, they couldnt, hell they couldnt even feed their own people because of 70 years of bad crops, lol, AS IF, so much for centralized planning and governance. You can try and explain away the events leading up to the demise of the Cold War in terms that are more pallatible to the liberals but in the end it was all our man Ron and his willingness to stand up to the "Evil Empire". Don't think for a minute that Gorbachev had any choice that didn't end up in the TOTAL collapse of the Soviets. In Reagans refusal to compromise on SDI lies the final blow to the Soviets. They made huge concessions because of that one great motivator, fear. The communist system was inherently flawed and it consumed itself as a result of outside influences moreso than any internal processes. Left to it's own devices, Marxism is a benign doctrine, Marxist-Leninism however is doomed to failure simply because the very policies it embraces ultimately prove to be it's Achilles tendon. Once power is wrested from the people only power can sustain it, yet that very same power is vulnerable to it's own successes and machinations. Much like the stereotypical gunslinger, the fact that there is always someone looking to take you down coupled with the fact that ultimately there is always someone who CAN take you down, openly oppressive governments have a big target on their backs. The USSR was the fastest gun in the west, actually east but small matter, in that town until Ronnie walked down mainstreet at high noon and proclaimed himself the new sheriff and never fired a shot.

Reagan put troops in Lebanon and then pulled out shortly after the marine barracks were blown up. Clinton put troops in Somalia then pulled them out after some rangers were killed during a mission. Thus the comment about cutting and running. Those are very similar circumstances. The cold war was quite a bit different. Primarily, for the cold war Reagan hadn't put troops in a foreign country that was not of strategic interest to the US. That's the situation where you are most likely to cut your losses and withdraw.

As for the power situation, anything can happen, but Fidel Castro was in power for a very long time and was never overthrown. Stalin was in power for many years and never lost power while he was alive. Hussein would still be in power if he didn't misread US intentions multiple times. Then there's Hosni Mubarek. Dictators can last a long time and it's only when they die or become too sick that an opening occurs for change, even when the economy is terrible. Kim Jong ll can't feed his people but he's still in power. Stalin couldn't have cared less if his people starved.

By the way, intelligence assessments had the Warsaw Pact outnumbering the US/NATO both in warheads and conventional forces, and we were trying to keep up in any case.

Fidel Castro is/was the leader of an inconsequential island and hasn't been relevent in years, at least since the Democratically botched Bay of Pigs tragedy and especially since the end of the Cold War. Stalin stayed in power due in no small part to the fact that FDR loved him - he even lovingly referred to him as Uncle Joe - as did much of the liberal establishment of that time, to the point of giving him much of eastern Europe as his killing grounds. The atrocities he unleashed upon his own people while the West stood idly by is a black mark upon civilized society, perpetrated on a Democratic watch and largely abetted by the West, much the same as Jong. Jong has been called an agrarian reformer by the current liberal establishment in apparent blindness to the fact that millions of his people have been starved to death. After negotiations and a promise to end his quest for nuclear technology he immediately set about developing that technology. I believe that was in the mid to late 90's while Clinton was in charge. Virtually every major political gaffe of the U.S. in the worlds political arena, especially in the area of military affairs, in the 2nd half of the 20th century occurred during a Democratic administration. The list is long. Just what did they teach you in your history classes? If it was recently I would bet it is the revisionist history that the academic elite has introduced as is the wont of liberal educators.

RebelKev Wrote:Clinton didn't put us in Somalia, NIU. Trust me, I know. The Rangers were there when our forces had dwindled to a fraction of what they were, thanks to Clinton. We were there with almost an entire division before.

And that, I believe, sounds like the voice of experience. If so then we all owe you.

Thanks

Good night all. Here is one thing I KNOW we can all agree on, GOOOOO TIGERS!!!! Can't wait till tomorrow!!

TigerBlue4Ever:


Enjoy.

All the rest:

Sorry I've been away for the last couple of weeks. I see this thread probably bordered on needing to be closed, but it looks like it has become civil recently.

TigerBlue4Ever Wrote:

the other Greg Childers Wrote:

TigerBlue4Ever Wrote:Are you saying that you would rather have discussed having a discussion about possibly holding off on going to war because previous discussions had failed to yield clear evidence that what had been discussed had not been found yet so more discussion was needed. In other words, we should have waited until there were mushroom clouds - or smoking remains of more high rises, gas clouds, dead bodies in the street, etc etc - on the horizon as irrefutable evidence that Iraq was engaging in hostile actions against it's own people and was rubbing elbows with terrorist bad guys who were attacking us.

If you're going to send in over 100,000 troops to stay for five years, you should make DAMN sure that you're going in for the right reasons.

That was not done for Iraq. We NEVER should've gone in. It was a personal vendetta by the Bush administration which siphoned off resources from the primary target--Osama bin Laden and his officers in Afganistan.

Spoken like a true liberal democrat, using the benefit of hindsight to change positions. After Saddam invaded Kuwait, Bush 1 went to war with Iraq exactly how the liberals like it, with the full approval of those darlings at the U.N. and our "allies". Even then, most Democrats opposed the war and demanded that our troops go no further than Baghdad. After 9/11 they complained that Bush didn't finish the job with Saddam even though it was the Dems that opposed doing so when Bush had the chance. Now that Bush 2 has, in fact, stopped Saddam unequivocally and finished the job, the Dems once again do a flip-flop and start bashing him for doing what they say his Dad should have done earlier. Never mind the fact that Iraq no longer suffers under the tyrranical rule of a madman and is on it's way to being one of very few - what? 2? - democracies in the Middle East.

What a crock. The elder Bush had no plans to go any further than liberating the Kuwaiti people. He knew the "Pottery Barn" philosophy about Iraq--You break it, you buy it. He was not prepared to go into Iraq and end up occupying it for an indefinite period of time. Too bad Dubya couldn't learn that lesson from his dad.

Saddam's military was decimated in the first Gulf War, and served no major threat to US security. We controlled two-thirds of the country's airspace and regularly controlled the "no-fly" zone. Instead of focusing resources on the REAL THREAT--Osama bin Laden and his officers in Afganistan--Dubya went after a non-threat Saddam Hussein.

Osama bin Laden, perpetrator of 9/11, has a better chance of dying of old age than dying in US custody.

TigerBlue4Ever Wrote:Fidel Castro is/was the leader of an inconsequential island and hasn't been relevent in years, at least since the Democratically botched Bay of Pigs tragedy and especially since the end of the Cold War. Stalin stayed in power due in no small part to the fact that FDR loved him - he even lovingly referred to him as Uncle Joe - as did much of the liberal establishment of that time, to the point of giving him much of eastern Europe as his killing grounds. The atrocities he unleashed upon his own people while the West stood idly by is a black mark upon civilized society, perpetrated on a Democratic watch and largely abetted by the West, much the same as Jong. Jong has been called an agrarian reformer by the current liberal establishment in apparent blindness to the fact that millions of his people have been starved to death. After negotiations and a promise to end his quest for nuclear technology he immediately set about developing that technology. I believe that was in the mid to late 90's while Clinton was in charge. Virtually every major political gaffe of the U.S. in the worlds political arena, especially in the area of military affairs, in the 2nd half of the 20th century occurred during a Democratic administration. The list is long. Just what did they teach you in your history classes? If it was recently I would bet it is the revisionist history that the academic elite has introduced as is the wont of liberal educators.

Republicans prop up their own share of dictators:



Don't get me started on our "allies" of the Saudi royal family.

the other Greg Childers Wrote:

TigerBlue4Ever Wrote:

the other Greg Childers Wrote:

TigerBlue4Ever Wrote:Are you saying that you would rather have discussed having a discussion about possibly holding off on going to war because previous discussions had failed to yield clear evidence that what had been discussed had not been found yet so more discussion was needed. In other words, we should have waited until there were mushroom clouds - or smoking remains of more high rises, gas clouds, dead bodies in the street, etc etc - on the horizon as irrefutable evidence that Iraq was engaging in hostile actions against it's own people and was rubbing elbows with terrorist bad guys who were attacking us.

If you're going to send in over 100,000 troops to stay for five years, you should make DAMN sure that you're going in for the right reasons.

That was not done for Iraq. We NEVER should've gone in. It was a personal vendetta by the Bush administration which siphoned off resources from the primary target--Osama bin Laden and his officers in Afganistan.

Spoken like a true liberal democrat, using the benefit of hindsight to change positions. After Saddam invaded Kuwait, Bush 1 went to war with Iraq exactly how the liberals like it, with the full approval of those darlings at the U.N. and our "allies". Even then, most Democrats opposed the war and demanded that our troops go no further than Baghdad. After 9/11 they complained that Bush didn't finish the job with Saddam even though it was the Dems that opposed doing so when Bush had the chance. Now that Bush 2 has, in fact, stopped Saddam unequivocally and finished the job, the Dems once again do a flip-flop and start bashing him for doing what they say his Dad should have done earlier. Never mind the fact that Iraq no longer suffers under the tyrranical rule of a madman and is on it's way to being one of very few - what? 2? - democracies in the Middle East.

What a crock. The elder Bush had no plans to go any further than liberating the Kuwaiti people. He knew the "Pottery Barn" philosophy about Iraq--You break it, you buy it. He was not prepared to go into Iraq and end up occupying it for an indefinite period of time. Too bad Dubya couldn't learn that lesson from his dad.

Saddam's military was decimated in the first Gulf War, and served no major threat to US security. We controlled two-thirds of the country's airspace and regularly controlled the "no-fly" zone. Instead of focusing resources on the REAL THREAT--Osama bin Laden and his officers in Afganistan--Dubya went after a non-threat Saddam Hussein.

Osama bin Laden, perpetrator of 9/11, has a better chance of dying of old age than dying in US custody.

Once again you miss the point entirely, go away and come back when you can offer something germaine to the conversation. I am sticking to my resolve to not even argue a point with you since you can't stay on topic and offer point-counterpoint dialogue intelligently.

the other Greg Childers Wrote:

TigerBlue4Ever Wrote:

the other Greg Childers Wrote:

TigerBlue4Ever Wrote:Are you saying that you would rather have discussed having a discussion about possibly holding off on going to war because previous discussions had failed to yield clear evidence that what had been discussed had not been found yet so more discussion was needed. In other words, we should have waited until there were mushroom clouds - or smoking remains of more high rises, gas clouds, dead bodies in the street, etc etc - on the horizon as irrefutable evidence that Iraq was engaging in hostile actions against it's own people and was rubbing elbows with terrorist bad guys who were attacking us.

If you're going to send in over 100,000 troops to stay for five years, you should make DAMN sure that you're going in for the right reasons.

That was not done for Iraq. We NEVER should've gone in. It was a personal vendetta by the Bush administration which siphoned off resources from the primary target--Osama bin Laden and his officers in Afganistan.

Spoken like a true liberal democrat, using the benefit of hindsight to change positions. After Saddam invaded Kuwait, Bush 1 went to war with Iraq exactly how the liberals like it, with the full approval of those darlings at the U.N. and our "allies". Even then, most Democrats opposed the war and demanded that our troops go no further than Baghdad. After 9/11 they complained that Bush didn't finish the job with Saddam even though it was the Dems that opposed doing so when Bush had the chance. Now that Bush 2 has, in fact, stopped Saddam unequivocally and finished the job, the Dems once again do a flip-flop and start bashing him for doing what they say his Dad should have done earlier. Never mind the fact that Iraq no longer suffers under the tyrranical rule of a madman and is on it's way to being one of very few - what? 2? - democracies in the Middle East.

What a crock. The elder Bush had no plans to go any further than liberating the Kuwaiti people. He knew the "Pottery Barn" philosophy about Iraq--You break it, you buy it. He was not prepared to go into Iraq and end up occupying it for an indefinite period of time. Too bad Dubya couldn't learn that lesson from his dad.

Saddam's military was decimated in the first Gulf War, and served no major threat to US security. We controlled two-thirds of the country's airspace and regularly controlled the "no-fly" zone. Instead of focusing resources on the REAL THREAT--Osama bin Laden and his officers in Afganistan--Dubya went after a non-threat Saddam Hussein.

Osama bin Laden, perpetrator of 9/11, has a better chance of dying of old age than dying in US custody.

I must agree with you....Bush Senior did not want to risk lives to take out Saddam....and yes...Saddam was never a threat to the US.
and we never had any reason to invade Iraq...Expecially without a formal declaration of war.

We showed Bin Laden how to fight a war against a super power in Afganistan against the Soviets....Low cost weapons(shoulder fired missles) destroying high cost weapons(Choppers).....Bin Laden must have been thrilled to learn that we invaded Iraq and give him a chance to use the same strategy again....IEDs against US military vehicles.

We will leave the region for the same reason the Soviets left....MONEY...We just cant continue to be able to finance this boondoggle much longer.

TigerBlue4Ever Wrote:

the other Greg Childers Wrote:

TigerBlue4Ever Wrote:

the other Greg Childers Wrote:

TigerBlue4Ever Wrote:Are you saying that you would rather have discussed having a discussion about possibly holding off on going to war because previous discussions had failed to yield clear evidence that what had been discussed had not been found yet so more discussion was needed. In other words, we should have waited until there were mushroom clouds - or smoking remains of more high rises, gas clouds, dead bodies in the street, etc etc - on the horizon as irrefutable evidence that Iraq was engaging in hostile actions against it's own people and was rubbing elbows with terrorist bad guys who were attacking us.

If you're going to send in over 100,000 troops to stay for five years, you should make DAMN sure that you're going in for the right reasons.

That was not done for Iraq. We NEVER should've gone in. It was a personal vendetta by the Bush administration which siphoned off resources from the primary target--Osama bin Laden and his officers in Afganistan.

Spoken like a true liberal democrat, using the benefit of hindsight to change positions. After Saddam invaded Kuwait, Bush 1 went to war with Iraq exactly how the liberals like it, with the full approval of those darlings at the U.N. and our "allies". Even then, most Democrats opposed the war and demanded that our troops go no further than Baghdad. After 9/11 they complained that Bush didn't finish the job with Saddam even though it was the Dems that opposed doing so when Bush had the chance. Now that Bush 2 has, in fact, stopped Saddam unequivocally and finished the job, the Dems once again do a flip-flop and start bashing him for doing what they say his Dad should have done earlier. Never mind the fact that Iraq no longer suffers under the tyrranical rule of a madman and is on it's way to being one of very few - what? 2? - democracies in the Middle East.

What a crock. The elder Bush had no plans to go any further than liberating the Kuwaiti people. He knew the "Pottery Barn" philosophy about Iraq--You break it, you buy it. He was not prepared to go into Iraq and end up occupying it for an indefinite period of time. Too bad Dubya couldn't learn that lesson from his dad.

Saddam's military was decimated in the first Gulf War, and served no major threat to US security. We controlled two-thirds of the country's airspace and regularly controlled the "no-fly" zone. Instead of focusing resources on the REAL THREAT--Osama bin Laden and his officers in Afganistan--Dubya went after a non-threat Saddam Hussein.

Osama bin Laden, perpetrator of 9/11, has a better chance of dying of old age than dying in US custody.

Once again you miss the point entirely, go away and come back when you can offer something germaine to the conversation. I am sticking to my resolve to not even argue a point with you since you can't stay on topic and offer point-counterpoint dialogue intelligently.

Are you kidding me? I completely refute your statements, and you claim I'm off-topic?

You're not very good at this.

the other Greg Childers Wrote:

TigerBlue4Ever Wrote:

the other Greg Childers Wrote:

TigerBlue4Ever Wrote:

the other Greg Childers Wrote:

TigerBlue4Ever Wrote:Are you saying that you would rather have discussed having a discussion about possibly holding off on going to war because previous discussions had failed to yield clear evidence that what had been discussed had not been found yet so more discussion was needed. In other words, we should have waited until there were mushroom clouds - or smoking remains of more high rises, gas clouds, dead bodies in the street, etc etc - on the horizon as irrefutable evidence that Iraq was engaging in hostile actions against it's own people and was rubbing elbows with terrorist bad guys who were attacking us.

If you're going to send in over 100,000 troops to stay for five years, you should make DAMN sure that you're going in for the right reasons.

That was not done for Iraq. We NEVER should've gone in. It was a personal vendetta by the Bush administration which siphoned off resources from the primary target--Osama bin Laden and his officers in Afganistan.

Spoken like a true liberal democrat, using the benefit of hindsight to change positions. After Saddam invaded Kuwait, Bush 1 went to war with Iraq exactly how the liberals like it, with the full approval of those darlings at the U.N. and our "allies". Even then, most Democrats opposed the war and demanded that our troops go no further than Baghdad. After 9/11 they complained that Bush didn't finish the job with Saddam even though it was the Dems that opposed doing so when Bush had the chance. Now that Bush 2 has, in fact, stopped Saddam unequivocally and finished the job, the Dems once again do a flip-flop and start bashing him for doing what they say his Dad should have done earlier. Never mind the fact that Iraq no longer suffers under the tyrranical rule of a madman and is on it's way to being one of very few - what? 2? - democracies in the Middle East.

What a crock. The elder Bush had no plans to go any further than liberating the Kuwaiti people. He knew the "Pottery Barn" philosophy about Iraq--You break it, you buy it. He was not prepared to go into Iraq and end up occupying it for an indefinite period of time. Too bad Dubya couldn't learn that lesson from his dad.

Saddam's military was decimated in the first Gulf War, and served no major threat to US security. We controlled two-thirds of the country's airspace and regularly controlled the "no-fly" zone. Instead of focusing resources on the REAL THREAT--Osama bin Laden and his officers in Afganistan--Dubya went after a non-threat Saddam Hussein.

Osama bin Laden, perpetrator of 9/11, has a better chance of dying of old age than dying in US custody.

Once again you miss the point entirely, go away and come back when you can offer something germaine to the conversation. I am sticking to my resolve to not even argue a point with you since you can't stay on topic and offer point-counterpoint dialogue intelligently.

Are you kidding me? I completely refute your statements, and you claim I'm off-topic?

You're not very good at this.

The point was not whether Bush 1 wanted to proceed further than Baghdad, the point was that the Dem's wouldn't allow it -even had he wanted to - and then wanted to know why he didn't finish the job when he had the opportunity. THAT was my point. obviously it went over your head. Everything else you addressed wasn't even mentioned in your quote of what I said. No where in anything you quoted was a statement that you even remotely addressed. Typical liberal re-write. Why don'y you go back and read everything here that you quoted and that you say you refuted, you address nothing other than what your own mind manufactures as germaine to this conversation.

To offer counterpoint to your off topic statements, Bush 2 went after your "non-threat" Hussein with Congressional approval, the only thing that made this war "illegal" is that he didn't wait on the approval of the U.N. or our "allies". Eff the U.N. even though I know you think they should have unlimited input into the affairs of our country and eff our "allies". The only allies that mattered went in with us.

Oh wait, that didn't address anything you said, wow, I can play that game too!

Man you have some kind of selective perceptions.
Seems like YOU aren't very good at this, the only thing you are good at and you really aren't THAT good at it is to respond completely off-topic with misdirection and some kind of logic progression known only to you. You try and obfuscate central points by going off on some tangent that has very little relevence to the discussion at hand and then beat your chest, lol, get a grip.

TigerBlue4Ever Wrote:The point was not whether Bush 1 wanted to proceed further than Baghdad, the point was that the Dem's wouldn't allow it -even had he wanted to - and then wanted to know why he didn't finish the job when he had the opportunity. THAT was my point. obviously it went over your head. Everything else you addressed wasn't even mentioned in your quote of what I said. No where in anything you quoted was a statement that you even remotely addressed. Typical liberal re-write. Why don'y you go back and read everything here that you quoted and that you say you refuted, you address nothing other than what your own mind manufactures as germaine to this conversation.

To offer counterpoint to your off topic statements, Bush 2 went after your "non-threat" Hussein with Congressional approval, the only thing that made this war "illegal" is that he didn't wait on the approval of the U.N. or our "allies". Eff the U.N. even though I know you think they should have unlimited input into the affairs of our country and eff our "allies". The only allies that mattered went in with us.

Oh wait, that didn't address anything you said, wow, I can play that game too!

Man you have some kind of selective perceptions.
Seems like YOU aren't very good at this, the only thing you are good at and you really aren't THAT good at it is to respond completely off-topic with misdirection and some kind of logic progression known only to you. You try and obfuscate central points by going off on some tangent that has very little relevence to the discussion at hand and then beat your chest, lol, get a grip.

Once again, you prove you're not good at this.

Bush I had no plans to go further. Your claim that he was "held back" by the Democrats is laughable. The point of Gulf War I was the liberation of Kuwait, not the invasion of Iraq. Everyone except you seems to get that.

True, the invasion of Iraq by Dubya was "authorized" by Congress. The "Authorization for Use of Military Force Against Iraq Resolution of 2002" was approved by the House 296-133 and the Senate 77-23. Of course, the 296 votes in the House were made up of 215 Republicans and 81 Democrats, while the 77 Senate votes were made up of 48 Republicans and 29 Democrats. The invasion of Iraq was predicated on the misinformation of the Bush administration who told us lies about WMDs and mushroom clouds. The Republicans overwhelming voted for the use of force, and tricked just enough Democrats to give Dubya carte blanche to drag us into the quagmire.

Since that time, EVERY SINGLE JUSTIFICATION the administration has used have been proven totally false. This is a REPUBLICAN IMPERIAL WAR FOR OIL AND CONTROL OVER THE MIDDLE EAST. After that, they rammed the Un-Patriotic "Patriot" Act down our throats and have proceeded to steal our civil liberties left and right.

I'd trust the UN with running our country much more than I'd trust the Republicans. The Republicans have done everything in their power to destroy our country, and we need to throw them out of power in order to save it.

the other Greg Childers Wrote:

TigerBlue4Ever Wrote:The point was not whether Bush 1 wanted to proceed further than Baghdad, the point was that the Dem's wouldn't allow it -even had he wanted to - and then wanted to know why he didn't finish the job when he had the opportunity. THAT was my point. obviously it went over your head. Everything else you addressed wasn't even mentioned in your quote of what I said. No where in anything you quoted was a statement that you even remotely addressed. Typical liberal re-write. Why don'y you go back and read everything here that you quoted and that you say you refuted, you address nothing other than what your own mind manufactures as germaine to this conversation.

To offer counterpoint to your off topic statements, Bush 2 went after your "non-threat" Hussein with Congressional approval, the only thing that made this war "illegal" is that he didn't wait on the approval of the U.N. or our "allies". Eff the U.N. even though I know you think they should have unlimited input into the affairs of our country and eff our "allies". The only allies that mattered went in with us.

Oh wait, that didn't address anything you said, wow, I can play that game too!

Man you have some kind of selective perceptions.
Seems like YOU aren't very good at this, the only thing you are good at and you really aren't THAT good at it is to respond completely off-topic with misdirection and some kind of logic progression known only to you. You try and obfuscate central points by going off on some tangent that has very little relevence to the discussion at hand and then beat your chest, lol, get a grip.

Once again, you prove you're not good at this.

Bush I had no plans to go further. Your claim that he was "held back" by the Democrats is laughable. The point of Gulf War I was the liberation of Kuwait, not the invasion of Iraq. Everyone except you seems to get that.

True, the invasion of Iraq by Dubya was "authorized" by Congress. The "Authorization for Use of Military Force Against Iraq Resolution of 2002" was approved by the House 296-133 and the Senate 77-23. Of course, the 296 votes in the House were made up of 215 Republicans and 81 Democrats, while the 77 Senate votes were made up of 48 Republicans and 29 Democrats. The invasion of Iraq was predicated on the misinformation of the Bush administration who told us lies about WMDs and mushroom clouds. The Republicans overwhelming voted for the use of force, and tricked just enough Democrats to give Dubya carte blanche to drag us into the quagmire.

Since that time, EVERY SINGLE JUSTIFICATION the administration has used have been proven totally false. This is a REPUBLICAN IMPERIAL WAR FOR OIL AND CONTROL OVER THE MIDDLE EAST. After that, they rammed the Un-Patriotic "Patriot" Act down our throats and have proceeded to steal our civil liberties left and right.

I'd trust the UN with running our country much more than I'd trust the Republicans. The Republicans have done everything in their power to destroy our country, and we need to throw them out of power in order to save it.

Man..I was with you until you decided to give up our sovereignty to
the UN. I guess thats what divides todays Liberalism from classic Liberalism.

Fo Shizzle Wrote:

the other Greg Childers Wrote:

TigerBlue4Ever Wrote:The point was not whether Bush 1 wanted to proceed further than Baghdad, the point was that the Dem's wouldn't allow it -even had he wanted to - and then wanted to know why he didn't finish the job when he had the opportunity. THAT was my point. obviously it went over your head. Everything else you addressed wasn't even mentioned in your quote of what I said. No where in anything you quoted was a statement that you even remotely addressed. Typical liberal re-write. Why don'y you go back and read everything here that you quoted and that you say you refuted, you address nothing other than what your own mind manufactures as germaine to this conversation.

To offer counterpoint to your off topic statements, Bush 2 went after your "non-threat" Hussein with Congressional approval, the only thing that made this war "illegal" is that he didn't wait on the approval of the U.N. or our "allies". Eff the U.N. even though I know you think they should have unlimited input into the affairs of our country and eff our "allies". The only allies that mattered went in with us.

Oh wait, that didn't address anything you said, wow, I can play that game too!

Man you have some kind of selective perceptions.
Seems like YOU aren't very good at this, the only thing you are good at and you really aren't THAT good at it is to respond completely off-topic with misdirection and some kind of logic progression known only to you. You try and obfuscate central points by going off on some tangent that has very little relevence to the discussion at hand and then beat your chest, lol, get a grip.

Once again, you prove you're not good at this.

Bush I had no plans to go further. Your claim that he was "held back" by the Democrats is laughable. The point of Gulf War I was the liberation of Kuwait, not the invasion of Iraq. Everyone except you seems to get that.

True, the invasion of Iraq by Dubya was "authorized" by Congress. The "Authorization for Use of Military Force Against Iraq Resolution of 2002" was approved by the House 296-133 and the Senate 77-23. Of course, the 296 votes in the House were made up of 215 Republicans and 81 Democrats, while the 77 Senate votes were made up of 48 Republicans and 29 Democrats. The invasion of Iraq was predicated on the misinformation of the Bush administration who told us lies about WMDs and mushroom clouds. The Republicans overwhelming voted for the use of force, and tricked just enough Democrats to give Dubya carte blanche to drag us into the quagmire.

Since that time, EVERY SINGLE JUSTIFICATION the administration has used have been proven totally false. This is a REPUBLICAN IMPERIAL WAR FOR OIL AND CONTROL OVER THE MIDDLE EAST. After that, they rammed the Un-Patriotic "Patriot" Act down our throats and have proceeded to steal our civil liberties left and right.

I'd trust the UN with running our country much more than I'd trust the Republicans. The Republicans have done everything in their power to destroy our country, and we need to throw them out of power in order to save it.

Man..I was with you until you decided to give up our sovereignty to
the UN. I guess thats what divides todays Liberalism from classic Liberalism.

At least the UN isn't ACTIVELY trying to destroy America.

the point was that the Dem's wouldn't allow it -even had he wanted to - and then WANTED TO KNOW WHY HE DIDN'T FINISH THE JOB WHEN HE HAD THE OPPORTUNITY. THAT was my point. obviously it went over your head.

Stay on topic Shirley, even those this thread has gotten so far off topic as to be unrecognizable.
I'm done with this one

To prove that the US is center-right, just look at the success of conservative talk radio when compared to liberal talk radio. Air America went bankrupt pretty quickly because nobody listened. That should tell you a lot about the political leanings of the country.

the other Greg Childers Wrote:

Fo Shizzle Wrote:

the other Greg Childers Wrote:

TigerBlue4Ever Wrote:The point was not whether Bush 1 wanted to proceed further than Baghdad, the point was that the Dem's wouldn't allow it -even had he wanted to - and then wanted to know why he didn't finish the job when he had the opportunity. THAT was my point. obviously it went over your head. Everything else you addressed wasn't even mentioned in your quote of what I said. No where in anything you quoted was a statement that you even remotely addressed. Typical liberal re-write. Why don'y you go back and read everything here that you quoted and that you say you refuted, you address nothing other than what your own mind manufactures as germaine to this conversation.

To offer counterpoint to your off topic statements, Bush 2 went after your "non-threat" Hussein with Congressional approval, the only thing that made this war "illegal" is that he didn't wait on the approval of the U.N. or our "allies". Eff the U.N. even though I know you think they should have unlimited input into the affairs of our country and eff our "allies". The only allies that mattered went in with us.

Oh wait, that didn't address anything you said, wow, I can play that game too!

Man you have some kind of selective perceptions.
Seems like YOU aren't very good at this, the only thing you are good at and you really aren't THAT good at it is to respond completely off-topic with misdirection and some kind of logic progression known only to you. You try and obfuscate central points by going off on some tangent that has very little relevence to the discussion at hand and then beat your chest, lol, get a grip.

Once again, you prove you're not good at this.

Bush I had no plans to go further. Your claim that he was "held back" by the Democrats is laughable. The point of Gulf War I was the liberation of Kuwait, not the invasion of Iraq. Everyone except you seems to get that.

True, the invasion of Iraq by Dubya was "authorized" by Congress. The "Authorization for Use of Military Force Against Iraq Resolution of 2002" was approved by the House 296-133 and the Senate 77-23. Of course, the 296 votes in the House were made up of 215 Republicans and 81 Democrats, while the 77 Senate votes were made up of 48 Republicans and 29 Democrats. The invasion of Iraq was predicated on the misinformation of the Bush administration who told us lies about WMDs and mushroom clouds. The Republicans overwhelming voted for the use of force, and tricked just enough Democrats to give Dubya carte blanche to drag us into the quagmire.

Since that time, EVERY SINGLE JUSTIFICATION the administration has used have been proven totally false. This is a REPUBLICAN IMPERIAL WAR FOR OIL AND CONTROL OVER THE MIDDLE EAST. After that, they rammed the Un-Patriotic "Patriot" Act down our throats and have proceeded to steal our civil liberties left and right.

I'd trust the UN with running our country much more than I'd trust the Republicans. The Republicans have done everything in their power to destroy our country, and we need to throw them out of power in order to save it.

Man..I was with you until you decided to give up our sovereignty to
the UN. I guess thats what divides todays Liberalism from classic Liberalism.

At least the UN isn't ACTIVELY trying to destroy America.

Oh no...The UN just LOVES the United States. They work very hard in trying to get us to allow them to dictate policy...as they did with the intervention into Iraq.

dfarr Wrote:To prove that the US is center-right, just look at the success of conservative talk radio when compared to liberal talk radio. Air America went bankrupt pretty quickly because nobody listened. That should tell you a lot about the political leanings of the country.

Unlike conservatives, liberals don't need someone to spoon-feed them an opinion. And compared to other forms of media, talk radio is out on the fringe.

TigerBlue4Ever Wrote:the point was that the Dem's wouldn't allow it -even had he wanted to - and then WANTED TO KNOW WHY HE DIDN'T FINISH THE JOB WHEN HE HAD THE OPPORTUNITY. THAT was my point. obviously it went over your head.

Stay on topic Shirley, even those this thread has gotten so far off topic as to be unrecognizable.
I'm done with this one

You're making this up. At least try to stay in the realm of reality.

the other Greg Childers Wrote:Unlike conservatives, liberals don't need someone to spoon-feed them an opinion. And compared to other forms of media, talk radio is out on the fringe.

You must know that I read DU every day and can honestly say you are full of ****.

RebelKev Wrote:

the other Greg Childers Wrote:Unlike conservatives, liberals don't need someone to spoon-feed them an opinion. And compared to other forms of media, talk radio is out on the fringe.

You must know that I read DU every day and can honestly say you are full of ****.

I wouldn't know. I don't read it. I didn't even realize the site was still up.