Conservatives should consider Chuck Hagel
- Thread starter klaatu
- Start date
Cancel 2016.2
The Almighty
1) The economy is very strong. It just won't stay that way if we keep out-spending our revenues as we have done since 1960.
2) Just goes to show you that it doesn't matter who is in charge anymore. There are few truly fiscal conservative politicians out there.
2) Just goes to show you that it doesn't matter who is in charge anymore. There are few truly fiscal conservative politicians out there.
Dixie - In Memoriam
New member
See Dixie calls my points defeatist because I dont want to see our troops in a middle of a Desert fighting a cluster fuck of a War that was a monumental mistake to begin with. Defeatist Dixie? Losing what? What would we lose if we withdraw and tell Iraq the ball is now in your court. We can go on giving them financial and warhead support... because that much we do owe them, after all we did blow their Country to smithereens ...
No, defeatist because you lack the strength of conviction to finish the job, and had rather quit instead. What would we lose? Credibility with our allies, for starters. Governments who have stuck their necks out for us in the War on Terror, and have cooperated fully... like Pakistan, Saudi Arabia, Jordan, Egypt, Libya... We lose all credibility with them, and they will revert to what they feel is most secure to them, the radical Islamic terror ideology we are fighting. And for some unknown reason, you and many other pinheads seem to think, if we bail in Iraq, alQaeda and the terrorists who have been at war with us since 1993, will suddenly be content to bask in the glory of their victory, and no longer pose a viable threat! I'm not sure how the hell that works in your pinhead minds... If we bail on Iraq now, the Kurdish Iraqis will never trust us again for all of eternity, we will establish an enemy from hell for years to come. If we are perceived as losers in Iraq, Iran is perceived as the winner... this does not bode well for peace and security in the middle east.
Ok... if your point is accurate and we did go in for the purpose of protecting ourselves from Saddam ...
Hold on a minute, I never stated that we were going in to "protect ourselves from Saddam" that is YOUR premise. I maintain, if Saddam had been a viable threat we needed protection from, we would be debating what to do with the big glass fishbowl full of radioactive oil we own. This has more to do with strategically fighting a multi-dynamic war against radical Islamic jihadists, and combating the ideology that fuels it with something tolerable, like democracy!
what is the reason for being there 5 years later...
Because democracies aren't built in a matter of a few years, especially not in places that have NEVER known democracy before! This isn't easy! No one ever thought or claimed it would be!
figting a War of Insurgency, being liberators and protecting the Nation that we built? Especially now knowing that it was a major fuck up from the beginning!
How long do we go on? Your answer will be to WIN ... Win what?
Your problem is that middle part, where you are unwilling to accept that Iraq is not a major fuck up, never has been. Some of the pre-war intelligence was majorly fucked up, I admit that, some of the strategical planning was fucked up... this is the case in ALL wars... but the objective of replacing Saddam's regime with democracy is not fucked up at all, and is clearly beneficial to us in so many ways, if it works.
The game is over and it is now time to call a spade a spade ... nah..to plant evidence as you suggest to give apparence of WMD's would have been all to transparent.... it is better to decieve by the least obvious measures.
The game isn't over, the reality is, we are still in Iraq, and we will still be in Iraq next week, next month, and next year. People will die, we will hear the Liberals scream about it, nothing is going to change because too much is at stake in Iraq. I suggested, if you were going to be "lied to" by the administration, it could have been done, and in a way you would have never even dreamed of being suspicious of. You've built this deep dark pinhead conspiracy theory up in your head, where you think Bush lied to you about the WMD's to go to war, and that is absurd, he didn't need to lie to you, and if he did, you would have never caught him in it.
No, defeatist because you lack the strength of conviction to finish the job, and had rather quit instead. What would we lose? Credibility with our allies, for starters. Governments who have stuck their necks out for us in the War on Terror, and have cooperated fully... like Pakistan, Saudi Arabia, Jordan, Egypt, Libya... We lose all credibility with them, and they will revert to what they feel is most secure to them, the radical Islamic terror ideology we are fighting. And for some unknown reason, you and many other pinheads seem to think, if we bail in Iraq, alQaeda and the terrorists who have been at war with us since 1993, will suddenly be content to bask in the glory of their victory, and no longer pose a viable threat! I'm not sure how the hell that works in your pinhead minds... If we bail on Iraq now, the Kurdish Iraqis will never trust us again for all of eternity, we will establish an enemy from hell for years to come. If we are perceived as losers in Iraq, Iran is perceived as the winner... this does not bode well for peace and security in the middle east.
Ok... if your point is accurate and we did go in for the purpose of protecting ourselves from Saddam ...
Hold on a minute, I never stated that we were going in to "protect ourselves from Saddam" that is YOUR premise. I maintain, if Saddam had been a viable threat we needed protection from, we would be debating what to do with the big glass fishbowl full of radioactive oil we own. This has more to do with strategically fighting a multi-dynamic war against radical Islamic jihadists, and combating the ideology that fuels it with something tolerable, like democracy!
what is the reason for being there 5 years later...
Because democracies aren't built in a matter of a few years, especially not in places that have NEVER known democracy before! This isn't easy! No one ever thought or claimed it would be!
figting a War of Insurgency, being liberators and protecting the Nation that we built? Especially now knowing that it was a major fuck up from the beginning!
How long do we go on? Your answer will be to WIN ... Win what?
Your problem is that middle part, where you are unwilling to accept that Iraq is not a major fuck up, never has been. Some of the pre-war intelligence was majorly fucked up, I admit that, some of the strategical planning was fucked up... this is the case in ALL wars... but the objective of replacing Saddam's regime with democracy is not fucked up at all, and is clearly beneficial to us in so many ways, if it works.
The game is over and it is now time to call a spade a spade ... nah..to plant evidence as you suggest to give apparence of WMD's would have been all to transparent.... it is better to decieve by the least obvious measures.
The game isn't over, the reality is, we are still in Iraq, and we will still be in Iraq next week, next month, and next year. People will die, we will hear the Liberals scream about it, nothing is going to change because too much is at stake in Iraq. I suggested, if you were going to be "lied to" by the administration, it could have been done, and in a way you would have never even dreamed of being suspicious of. You've built this deep dark pinhead conspiracy theory up in your head, where you think Bush lied to you about the WMD's to go to war, and that is absurd, he didn't need to lie to you, and if he did, you would have never caught him in it.
Cancel 2016.2
The Almighty
"2) your statements prove the current cons are worse on spending than the dems were. The dems are putting back the pay as you go concept."
They can SAY that crap all they want. It is meaningless unless they ACTUALLY DO IT. Not once since 1960 have the politicians done so. Clintons second term with the Rep Congress came the closest, but again, even with the incredible economic BOOM, they couldn't manage to do so.
They can SAY that crap all they want. It is meaningless unless they ACTUALLY DO IT. Not once since 1960 have the politicians done so. Clintons second term with the Rep Congress came the closest, but again, even with the incredible economic BOOM, they couldn't manage to do so.
uscitizen
Villified User
Okay discount the second part of my statement.
Lets just take thei first part.
Empirical evidence during the clowntoon And shrub years shows the repubs to be worse spendthrifts than the demoncrats.
also I think they all suck too.
I vote FOR no one, I do vote against those I consider to be the worst.
Lets just take thei first part.
Empirical evidence during the clowntoon And shrub years shows the repubs to be worse spendthrifts than the demoncrats.
also I think they all suck too.
I vote FOR no one, I do vote against those I consider to be the worst.