Shrubbie and Maineman

tekkychick said:
After being totally lied to by the administration about WMDs, yellow cake, etc - then yes, a lot of Democrats supported the Commander in Chief.

If they hadn't, you would have accused them of being unpatriotic.

This does not change the facts: Bush lied. The Iraq war was a senseless slaughter of both Iraqis and American soldiers. With this stupid, senseless war, Bush killed more Americans than were killed on 9/11.

You are proud of Bush? you are proud of a mass killer.

Bush's lies have been proven well beyond the shadow of a doubt.

And you're proud of him. I would spit on your grave, except you do not deserve to be buried in the same ground that so many brave soldiers now rest in.
Click to expand...

Again, Good Woman, the same things you say above apply to any other conflict we could enter.

Their is simply no difference whatsoever.

War is War.

War is Hell.
 
By striking in Syria, how will this punish Assad? His ountry is lready at war trying to overthrow him, so what is the purpose? Will we hit his peronal residence? His family?

What do you see as the outcome of the strike? Will Iran, Russia and Syria hit US targets or do you see them cooperating with the US as a result?

Thanks

I am still trying to wrap my head around all this and not finding a good solution.
 
Rana said:
By striking in Syria, how will this punish Assad? His ountry is lready at war trying to overthrow him, so what is the purpose? Will we hit his peronal residence? His family?

What do you see as the outcome of the strike? Will Iran, Russia and Syria hit US targets or do you see them cooperating with the US as a result?

Thanks

I am still trying to wrap my head around all this and not finding a good solution.
Click to expand...

All very good questions. If the outcome of this is Iran going after US targets - we shouldn't do it. (and there is NO WAY Russia would go after US targets; Syria might, but not sure they can reach any). If Iran goes after Israel because of US targeting Syria - that would be a bad outcome. If we expect that, we shouldn't strike at Syria, we should come up with something else.

If we don't have "good" targets - i.e. military targets relatively isolated from civilians - we shouldn't do it.

Of course, at this point this is moot - we threatened; Assad & Russia have cobbled up a solution that will work; let's hope it actually happens. At this point in time, we have no reason to attack Syria.

War IS hell; often there are NO good solutions. I'm crossing my fingers that the diplomatic solution works. Because I don't see any good alternatives whether we bomb or don't bomb.
 
tekkychick said:
All very good questions. If the outcome of this is Iran going after US targets - we shouldn't do it. (and there is NO WAY Russia would go after US targets; Syria might, but not sure they can reach any). If Iran goes after Israel because of US targeting Syria - that would be a bad outcome. If we expect that, we shouldn't strike at Syria, we should come up with something else.

If we don't have "good" targets - i.e. military targets relatively isolated from civilians - we shouldn't do it.

Of course, at this point this is moot - we threatened; Assad & Russia have cobbled up a solution that will work; let's hope it actually happens. At this point in time, we have no reason to attack Syria.

War IS hell; often there are NO good solutions. I'm crossing my fingers that the diplomatic solution works. Because I don't see any good alternatives whether we bomb or don't bomb.
Click to expand...

Thanks for your answers
 
Who woulda thunk she was fooled by Bush?

Hillary-Clinton-tired-196x300.jpg
 
Rune said:
Yes, and it was dismantled you disingenuous hack.
Remember the UN weapons inspectors who we coul be bothered listening to?

What a lying hack piece of shit you are.
Click to expand...

Yeah, I remember the weapons inspector *YOU* listened to; Scott Ritter. The guy who swore Saddam was building an arsenal, until Saddam starting feeding him a steady diet of underaged girls. Then Ritter's whole story changed.

Since then he's been arrested numerous times as an internet predator, gone to prison for preying on underaged girls, and through it all he remains your hero and Iraq War mentor.

You must be so proud. Dickwad.
 
Meanwhile, I also remember weapons inspectors complaining of not being able to inspect sites, waiting hours while convoys of trucks came to the site, loaded up, and drove away.

I remember that.
 
Taft2016 said:
Yeah, I remember the weapons inspector *YOU* listened to; Scott Ritter. The guy who swore Saddam was building an arsenal, until Saddam starting feeding him a steady diet of underaged girls. Then Ritter's whole story changed.

Since then he's been arrested numerous times as an internet predator, gone to prison for preying on underaged girls, and through it all he remains your hero and Iraq War mentor.

You must be so proud. Dickwad.
Click to expand...

I guess you forgot about Joe Wilson, dickfuck. STFU, lying shitbag.
 
Taft2016 said:
Meanwhile, I also remember weapons inspectors complaining of not being able to inspect sites, waiting hours while convoys of trucks came to the site, loaded up, and drove away.

I remember that.
Click to expand...

I remember how NO WEAPONS WERE EVER FOUND, RETARD.
 
christiefan915 said:
It does look like a couple of votes are missing from the House, 433 vs. 435.

Bottom line, repubs supported the resolution by far more votes than dems did.
Click to expand...

Irrelevant.....without Dem support, the Authority to use military force in Iraq would never have passed.....
 
tekkychick said:
This does not change the facts: Bush lied.

Bush's lies have been proven well beyond the shadow of a doubt.
Click to expand...

These are the facts.....

If you insist it was all lies, then I'm proving that those lies started in 1996 by Democrats (before Bush) and continued until the war....

If you admit like I do, that it was not lies at all, it is what was honestly believed by both Dems and Repubs at that time....being wrong is totally different than lying.
 
NOVA said:
These are the facts.....

If you insist it was all lies, then I'm proving that those lies started in 1996 by Democrats (before Bush) and continued until the war....

If you admit like I do, that it was not lies at all, it is what was honestly believed by both Dems and Repubs at that time....being wrong is totally different than lying.
Click to expand...

A) You can't compare the '90's to 2002-03. Has it occurred to you that the sanctions implemented in the '90's to get Saddam to disarm actually WORKED?
B) My biggest problem with Bush is not the lies, which are documented and verfiable. It's the dishonest portrayal of the evidence that the admin did have. "The intel was being fixed around the policy" - let's not forget those words. That's exactly what they did; they stacked & cherrypicked what they had to support a case for war. They didn't present what they had in an objective way; it was all to serve the agenda.

Is that a "lie"? Maybe not - but it sure ain't honest.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top