Kasich vs. Sanders would have been such a great campaign

I understand why we went into Iraq and I supported it at the time. The execution was a complete failure.

There was a good amount of anti-war sentiment prior to the first Gulf War but we don't hear too many people talking about that today because it went so well and most of the negative predictions didn't materialize. Would that have happen if our 'adventure' in Iraq had turned out the same? (meaning in a good way)

I would be curious (not from a gotcha perspective but legitimately curious) if anyone here supported the first Gulf War and didn't support the second.
 
Thing1 said:
And worthy of a country as great as America.

Two principled candidates, offering two completely different approaches and viewpoints, running positive, message-oriented campaigns.

It's such a shame that this option was presented to primary voters, and we are going to get Trump/Clinton instead. This is going to be the ugliest campaign we've ever seen, from two very unprincipled candidates, who will spend very little time on message and most on hurling negatives toward the other side.
Click to expand...

How exactly is Kasich different from Sanders?
 
cawacko said:
I understand why we went into Iraq and I supported it at the time. The execution was a complete failure.

There was a good amount of anti-war sentiment prior to the first Gulf War but we don't hear too many people talking about that today because it went so well and most of the negative predictions didn't materialize. Would that have happen if our 'adventure' in Iraq had turned out the same? (meaning in a good way)

I would be curious (not from a gotcha perspective but legitimately curious) if anyone here supported the first Gulf War and didn't support the second.
Click to expand...
I supported neither, and do not feel it was a success, what did we succeed at?

Saddam was still in power and still unrepentant which led to the bigger mess of 2003.

It was not that big of a success.
 
NOVA said:
You are correct, but the French were pretty specific in saying that Saddam did not pose a threat in nuclear capability.....there is more to WMD than just
nuclear capacity.....which I don't think they addressed.....ie, chem. and bio. warfare....even the US was saying Iraq would not be a nuclear threat before 2006 and later.....

The NIE covers US concerns in 2002.....we don't know what the Clinton admin. had in intell that prompted his warnings as early as 1996.

Its all ancient history not worth the trouble of debating over and over at this stage....whats done is done....
Click to expand...

The bolded is wrong. It's extremely important to debate & understand what happened.

Those who don't learn from the past, & all that.
 
Rana said:
I supported neither, and do not feel it was a success, what did we succeed at?

Saddam was still in power and still unrepentant which led to the bigger mess of 2003.

It was not that big of a success.
Click to expand...

Driving Saddam out of Kuwait wasn't a success? What do you think would have happened to the ME and to oil had the world let Saddam go unpunished?
 
cawacko said:
I understand why we went into Iraq and I supported it at the time. The execution was a complete failure.

There was a good amount of anti-war sentiment prior to the first Gulf War but we don't hear too many people talking about that today because it went so well and most of the negative predictions didn't materialize. Would that have happen if our 'adventure' in Iraq had turned out the same? (meaning in a good way)

I would be curious (not from a gotcha perspective but legitimately curious) if anyone here supported the first Gulf War and didn't support the second.
Click to expand...

I didn't support either, but my recollection was more that of overwhelming support for the 1st one. I think public approval was over 90% at that time.

There was still majority support for the war in '03, but it was less, and the anti-war movement was more vocal & organized.
 
Thing1 said:
I didn't support either, but my recollection was more that of overwhelming support for the 1st one. I think public approval was over 90% at that time.

There was still majority support for the war in '03, but it was less, and the anti-war movement was more vocal & organized.
Click to expand...

I remember Bush's approval rating being at 90% post Gulf War but I don't recall support for going being that high prior (although I could be wrong on that)
 
cawacko said:
Driving Saddam out of Kuwait wasn't a success? What do you think would have happened to the ME and to oil had the world let Saddam go unpunished?
Click to expand...

Drove him out, but left him in power, that is not a success in my books, it was an incomplete mission.
 
Rana said:
Drove him out, but left him in power, that is not a success in my books, it was an incomplete mission.
Click to expand...

Ok, so why did you not support driving him out of power in 2003 if you felt we should have done it in 1990?
 
Sanders is unelectable. He didn't even hold down a job until he was nearly 40, when he got himself elected mayor after decades of being the neighborhood raving unemployed irritant. He wrote some really messed up things in his "youth" (over 30). And there's a lot more. He lived in a hovel with a dirt floor when he wasn't mooching off his current lover by crashing with them. I mean, this guy is basically your worst nightmare of a date ever. It's funny, being active on the left, I have known guys like him believe me. Loser from a mile away. Only Vermont could have given us this guy, the way only Alabama could give us Jefferson Beauregard Sessions.

I love the Bernie bros, best encompassed by the spoiled brat who screamed out at a Bernie rally "150 thousand, columbia grad school", during their prayer meeting when they all scream and cry to Preacher Bernie about their college bills. Think about that. White. Male. And privileged enough to be going to Columbia University GRADUATE SCHOOL. And this guy wants free college - send the bill to Darla! Guess who is going to be eagerly voting in 15 years to slash Granny Darla's social security benefits, cause you know, everyone's got to have some skin in the game and we can't afford all of this, my taxes are too high! That's right! Mr. Bernie Bro Columbia Graduate School, Ph.D.

Anyway, I don't give a shit about all of the tears from the bernie bros, and the cries of "hypocrite" from the amnosexuals, the latter of which have no beliefs at all. I love being old. I have become grumpy and best of all I don't give a fuck about any of the usual suspects.

I know so many of these guys on the left who are screaming "facist!" at Hillary now and actually saying they're going to vote for trump, or that, they're thinking of it, or that, and this is my favorite, the neocons love Hillary and hate Trump...like Trump is a peacenik or something. Meanwhile no one really knows what he is. He was before the Iraq war before he was 'against it from the beginning". Unfortunately, in my own "youthful" phase (hey if Bernie is making youthtful mistakes at 30 plus, me too!) I was in with these guys. I now look back on them and can only compare them to shamefucks.

I've also gotten a bit more conservative as I've gotten older. Hey guess what? terrorists ARE trying to kill us. That's right Nancyboys bernie bros. They really, really are. I'm only really left on race, woman's rights, and climate change. A lot of the other stuff, I feel like, cry me a river you little liberal cry baby. Free college? Free community college I will go for. Anything else? Get a freaking job and pay for it.

I have seen them all crying all over twitter and issuing threats...Greenwald, Scahill...a host of others both known and unknown. It's almost as funny as watching the Republicans destroy their party. I don't know which is better. I do know that out of the ashes, rises Hillary Clinton.

Madam President to you.
 
Thing1 said:
Well, that explains a lot. No wonder you feel as you do if you're reading reports that have been 75% redacted.

And even w/ the redactions, it has as "low confidence" the idea that Saddam could attack the U.S.

This was not a WMD war. It was a PNAC war. PNAC wanted to re-shape the Middle East - even Paul Wolfowicz admitted that WMD's were what they used to sell the war to the public.

Unless we all wake up a bit & learn what happened to us in '03, we're really doomed to repeat the same mistakes again.
Click to expand...

From page 9 on, little is redacted and its quite clear what the NIE claims.....
And ....having 'low confidence' in their ability to access does not mean low confidence in an event happening....don't take the phrase out of context....
You do know the difference don't you....?

Yeah, WMD's were what was used to sell the war because thats what the perceived danger was....what's you point....
WMD's is what Clinton ranted about long before Bush was President, and Democrats still made it a topic into the first 2 of his admin....thats quite an important fact.

There is a historic timeline concerning Saddam and WMD....just start in the Clinton admin in 1992 and follow it up to 2003.....if you don't just look for the things that support
you per-conceived conclusions, your liable to learn a lot of other things....

Ancient history and now I'm done with it.
 
I did not support the invasion of the First Gulf War, either

What I am repeating here is the analysis by military instructors that I have read, who claim that though the removal of Saddam from Kuwait, the aftermath of the mission was a failure. The coalition left Saddam in power which seem to embolden him thinking he was the victor. He went on to defy the UN, tried to assassinate Bush and tried to reinvade Kuwait. By ending the war before chastising Saddam, Bush relegated the US to a decade of presence in ME trying to deal with Saddam which led to the sanctions of the Clinton era and eventually to the second Gulf War.
 
I understand why we went into Iraq and I supported it at the time. The execution was a complete failure.
Click to expand...
there wasn't a good way to 'execute it'..Saddam was not going to reform to a democratic Iraq
and Iraq as we all now know is sectarian & ethnic fissures.

It requires a strongman - just like Libya required qadaffi - where tribal and geographic ( if not sectarian) fissures
are centrifugal force to nationalism..

All the kings horses and all the kings men
couldn't put Humpty together again
 
Darla said:
Sanders is unelectable. He didn't even hold down a job until he was nearly 40, when he got himself elected mayor after decades of being the neighborhood raving unemployed irritant. He wrote some really messed up things in his "youth" (over 30). And there's a lot more. He lived in a hovel with a dirt floor when he wasn't mooching off his current lover by crashing with them. I mean, this guy is basically your worst nightmare of a date ever. It's funny, being active on the left, I have known guys like him believe me. Loser from a mile away. Only Vermont could have given us this guy, the way only Alabama could give us Jefferson Beauregard Sessions.

I love the Bernie bros, best encompassed by the spoiled brat who screamed out at a Bernie rally "150 thousand, columbia grad school", during their prayer meeting when they all scream and cry to Preacher Bernie about their college bills. Think about that. White. Male. And privileged enough to be going to Columbia University GRADUATE SCHOOL. And this guy wants free college - send the bill to Darla! Guess who is going to be eagerly voting in 15 years to slash Granny Darla's social security benefits, cause you know, everyone's got to have some skin in the game and we can't afford all of this, my taxes are too high! That's right! Mr. Bernie Bro Columbia Graduate School, Ph.D.

Anyway, I don't give a shit about all of the tears from the bernie bros, and the cries of "hypocrite" from the amnosexuals, the latter of which have no beliefs at all. I love being old. I have become grumpy and best of all I don't give a fuck about any of the usual suspects.

I know so many of these guys on the left who are screaming "facist!" at Hillary now and actually saying they're going to vote for trump, or that, they're thinking of it, or that, and this is my favorite, the neocons love Hillary and hate Trump...like Trump is a peacenik or something. Meanwhile no one really knows what he is. He was before the Iraq war before he was 'against it from the beginning". Unfortunately, in my own "youthful" phase (hey if Bernie is making youthtful mistakes at 30 plus, me too!) I was in with these guys. I now look back on them and can only compare them to shamefucks.

I've also gotten a bit more conservative as I've gotten older. Hey guess what? terrorists ARE trying to kill us. That's right Nancyboys bernie bros. They really, really are. I'm only really left on race, woman's rights, and climate change. A lot of the other stuff, I feel like, cry me a river you little liberal cry baby. Free college? Free community college I will go for. Anything else? Get a freaking job and pay for it.

I have seen them all crying all over twitter and issuing threats...Greenwald, Scahill...a host of others both known and unknown. It's almost as funny as watching the Republicans destroy their party. I don't know which is better. I do know that out of the ashes, rises Hillary Clinton.

Madam President to you.
Click to expand...
Always good to see you here!
 
Thing1 said:
You're "they do it too" doesn't work with me, bravs. I was against Vietnam & every action under Clinton.

And I won't even address your idea that the war was only a few weeks. It's one of the most embarrassing, apologist arguments I've seen presented on this site. Try telling that to family members of kids that were dying or maimed for the 10 years after that.

Get your head out of the sand. That is absolutely pathetic.
Click to expand...

2003
March

March 20: The United States begins the invasion of Iraq; coordinating a satellite-guided tomahawk cruise missile strike on Baghdad.[1] American, British, Australian, Polish, and Danish military operations begin; ground troops move into Iraq.[2]

April

April 10: Fall of Baghdad: Coalition forces moved into Baghdad, symbolically ending the twenty-four year reign of Iraqi President Saddam Hussein.[3]

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Timeline_of_the_Iraq_War

The facts.....March 20, to April 10....SHOOTING WAR IS OVER.....and that IS what I clearly said, the shooting war...history, Thingy, history.

The rest is the ill-conceived occupation.....
=================
The fact that you say you were against Vietnam and Iraq Was is noted....but that is hardly my point in debating you....the "they did it too" isn't being used as a excuse by me....
but it certainly isn't a fact to be dismissed in understanding how and why we got to where we did.....and that IS my point....

If you're interested in understanding the how and why you have to know the history of the issue before the Resolution was passed and the actual invasion...
 
lots of liberals confess to liking Kasich......you should dump Hillary and Sanders and nominate Kasich.....even I might go back to voting Democrat if you did......
 
Rana said:
I did not support the invasion of the First Gulf War, either

What I am repeating here is the analysis by military instructors that I have read, who claim that though the removal of Saddam from Kuwait, the aftermath of the mission was a failure. The coalition left Saddam in power which seem to embolden him thinking he was the victor. He went on to defy the UN, tried to assassinate Bush and tried to reinvade Kuwait. By ending the war before chastising Saddam, Bush relegated the US to a decade of presence in ME trying to deal with Saddam which led to the sanctions of the Clinton era and eventually to the second Gulf War.
Click to expand...

Wait, there was no mandate to go after Saddam the first time and now you're saying we should have? And how can you say we should have taken him out then but not in 2003?
 
anatta said:
disbanding the Iraqi army was the kiss of death - that was Bremmer's work

recall ISIS is made up of not just Sunni insurgents, but former Baathists officers ..

Then add in al-Malaki's purging of any Sunni officer corps,and the current army is little more then another Shi'a militia.
There is no interests in defending the Sunni heartland, and the Sunni's don't want the Iraqi Amy into Anbar
Click to expand...

Agreed anatta....that was an unfortunate blunder.....

It must have seemed like the right move for the winning side at the time.....but that decision surely lacked any foresight in its repercussions....along with the ignorance of
realizing a civil war between opposing Mulsim factions was almost sure to happen.....the occupation was a total mess....
 
Thing1 said:
The "end of the shooting war."

Disgusting. You're an apologist, bravs - and a bad one, at that.
Click to expand...

Sorry you can't accept the historical facts, Thingy, but thats your problem, not mine....

Saddam was ousted, the Iraqi army was no more, in 3 weeks,....... dems just the facts.....

April 9, 2003

U.S. troops pull down a statue of Saddam Hussein in central Baghdad.Goran Tomasevic/Reuters

Saddam Hussein's rule collapses in a matter of hours as much of Baghdad comes under American control. Across much of the capital, Iraqis take to the streets to topple statues of Mr. Hussein, loot government ministries and interrogation centers, and give a cheering, often tearful welcome to advancing American troops.

http://www.nytimes.com/interactive/...100831-Iraq-Timeline.html?_r=0#/#time111_3262



The shooting was a total success, what followed, the occupation, a total disaster.....
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top