"I Have A Bracelet Too"
- Thread starter stratedude
- Start date
Phil Ayesho
Superior Member
In a string of ignorant posts- this is the most ignorant thing you've said yet.
No- we did not go in for Bush's Daddy.
No- we did not go in for Al Queda- because they were not in there.
No- we did not go in for WMD's because not only was there AMPLE evidence that no such weapons programs were in place, not only is the absolute proof that the Administration KNEW its representations of WMD's were Lies-
But, IF in fact we were worried about WMD's in the hands of an extremist dictator...
WE WOULD HAVE GONE INTO KOREA, FIRST>
Kim actually HAD a verified WMD program.
No- we did not go in to "free the iraqis"
IN fact, The general in charge of ground operation in Afghanistan BEGGED the administration for more troops when he had Bin Laden cornered in the hills.
Promised that 6,000 troops would mean capture of Bin Laden...
And he was REFUSED by Rumsfeld, who wanted those troops to go into Iraq. ( where NO Al Queda existed.)
The plans to invade Iraq were drawn up by Rumsfeld and Wolfowitz DURING BUSH'S CAMPAIGN...
There are memoranda outlining exactly how and exactly WHY they wanted to go into IRaq... and it was for the OIL.
After 15 years of sanctions- IRaq was sitting on top of the world's largest untapped reservoir of oil.- in fully developed fields.
We have documentation that shows that both Bush and Cheney resisted this idea- Until the economic slowdown of the dotcom bust looked so bad that they began to think getting that oil would lower oil prices and spur a recovery.
'The attacks of 9/11 was the excuse they needed to sell this boondoggle to the American people.
So- despite what prop[aganda you may have bougtht into.
We went into Iraq for the OIL and for the geo-political aims of the NeoCons, who think America, as the only superpower left, should throw it military weight around to get its way.
And those are the ONLY reasons we are there.
After Bagdad fell- there were NO US troops sent to secure the hospitals, banks, museums, or business district of Iraq.
But there WERE troops stationed at EVERY oil field, no matter how remote, and ALL of them were using Maps of Iraqi oil fields dating back to the 1950's - provided by the US oil companies that NOW have contracts to exploit those fields.
Don't be such a minion of corporate greed as to believe any BS about "threats"
The ONLY threat Iraq was meant to address was the threat of the US being in hock to the Oil States of the middle east.
Phil Ayesho
Superior Member
Well- let's examine the record, shall we?
WWI- won by a Democrat
WWII- won by a Democrat
Korea- won by a Democrat
Vietnam - LOST by a republican
Gulf war 1- won by a repiblican
Bosnia- Won by a Democrat
( I won't mention "granada" because, really... it was a tiny island whose chief export was diplomas. I also don't mention other minor UN actions)
SO- thus far You're claims are just plain wrong
Democrats have a much better record of handling REAL threats to this nation than repiblicans..
AND they managed to do so without bankrupting the nation and destroying Wall Street...
I just love the simple one eyed perspective of the conservative imbecile.
Facts;
Republicans ARMED Bin Laden.
Clinton was the first president to Identify Bin Laden as a serious threat.
Clinton had CIA tracking Bin Laden's movements and was waiting for a justifiable cause to capture or kill Bin Laden...
When a REPUBLICAN senator, trying to impress a reporter, spilled the beans on HOW the CIA was tracking him.
THAT is how Bin Laden went underground-
Kind of like how republicans Outing Valerie Plame resulted in dismantling an entire CIA operation dedicated to tracking black market uranium and plutonium. ( that was good for defense against our enemies.)
Clinton ENFORCED sanctions and inspection on Iraq- Which is WHY there were NO WMD's despite Bush's lies..
And- after Bin Laden attacked US embassies...
When Clinton ordered cruise missile attacks...
Who was it who was ALL OVER the television and papers WAILING about how his strong response to terrorist attack was NOTHING but an attempt to divert attention from a REPUBLICAN investigation into a blowjob.
So- tell me, Just how concerned were republicans about our "enemies" when the only enemy they paid attention to was Clinton?
When a BLOWJOB was more important to them than attacks on our embassies and the USS Cole?
Don't even START with that republican shit about Clinton being soft on terrorism when the republicans didn't even DISCOVER terrorism as an enemy until 9/11-
Clinton HANDED Bush intelligence on Bin Laden planning attacks in the US-
Condi GLANCED at it...
and did not make ONE phone call, did not write ONE email, did not call one meeting to investigate further.
One call to the FBI asking if any of their field offices had any unusual reports about Arabs visiting on visas would have revealed the Flight instruction the terrorists were taking in Florida.
And, thus far- with the entire US army at their disposal- Republicans have not managed to find ONE WMD- have not brought democracy to iraq- have NOT stabilized the Mideast- have not even managed to get the OIL out...
And have not managed to find or kill Bin Laden.
So- seriously and for true... shut the fuck up about republicans being better at fighting our enemies.
The only people they REALLY think are enemies- the only ones they REALLY pay attention to fighting, are democrats.
You are as stupid as McCain.
Why are we in the middle east?
Cause our national interest makes us HOSTAGE to the OIL they have.
Being reliant on a foreign nation for a critical materiel is WEAKENING the US strategically...
You REALLY want to stop terrorism?
You REALLY want to hurt islamic fundamentalism?
Try getting the US OFF OIL.
IF we developed the technology to REPLACE oil... and we sold that technology all over the world...
Then almost no one would NEED oil.
With NO money coming in the oil states would come begging to us.
Or they could go back to being nomadic date farmers...who cares?
you want to HURT them? Make them irrelevant to world affairs.
THAT is a wining strategy.
Thus far- the Republicans have HANDED to Bin Laden all the success he could ever have hoped for.
The US is on the brink of financial collapse because Republicans have been IGNORING the economy in favor of a pointless war.
The credibility and prestige of the US has been destroyed all over the world, the dollar eroded, and world opinion has turned against a US that looks not only like an imperialistic bully... but a clumsy and oafish bully, at that.
Our military has been worn out and over deployed because our president will not institute a draft to fight his global war...
Our constitution has been decimated, our freedoms eroded and our right stripped away.
We have built the first Gulag in US history and abandoned due process...
And ALL of this is damage that Bin Laden could NEVER have Hoped to achieve...
...without the help of the republicans and their idiotic mismanagement of this nation.
You can tell who is winning a war by which side is achieving their objectives.
Which side is getting what they are after in this conflict?
To win, you refuse the enemy their objectives...
Bin Laden wants to be the focus of attention...
You do not make him the primary concern of the most powerful nation on earth... that is giving him exactly what he wants.
You do not abridge the very freedoms you claim HE wants to destroy- that is giving him what he wants.
You do not bankrupt your nation borrowing money to kick in doors in villages his operation has never even visited- you do not throw an army into the WRONG country to kill 100,000 totally innocent muslims and think that will REDUCE hatred of the US...
That is giving Bin Laden exactly what he wants- ever widening support in the Muslim world.
The US is reeling.
Bin Laden is celebrating.
And you are too busy hating democrats to realize when a strategy is an utter failure.
Too dedicated to the Dogma of Party even to SEE that republican policies and republican management of this "war" has actualyl FURTHERED the goals of our enemies.
Republicans proudly thump their chests about there being no new attacks in the US since 9/11...
But why should Bin Laden spend money and men on new attacks when the Republicans are doing Far MORE damage to the US than he could ever hope for?
A vote for republicans is a vote for collaborators.
I heard George HW Bush say in an interview that he REALLY WANTED to go into Baghdad and finish the job but that it would have meant going in alone because the rest of the coalition was against it. He was right because the very reason we had to go back in 2003 was that Saddam was violating the UN resolutions put into place as a result of the Gulf War.
Barack? Is that you? Seriously by about the 2nd paragraph I just realized that you are so far off base in your understanding of what is going on here that all this ranting can't possibly warrant an explanation. That is called a thorough education. You don't even have a clue why we were justified in going to Iraq but not Korea. That alone was enough to just stop you there and say, "You know what, it is too much a waste of time to bother with you. I could write a book that counters all of your wild ideas (even though there are plenty of books out there that do it already), but that is not why I am here. If you want to ask any specific questions as to why you are wrong about a certain point, or if you feel the need to challenge me one a particular point, I will welcome that. But when you throw every convoluted, backwards idea you have in your arsenal at me at once, all I can say is, you simply don't understand. And it makes me wonder if you are the Senator Obama himself.
Our excuse for going into Iraq was because they wouldn't allow UN inspectors in. But the REASON we went into Iraq is because we needed access to their oil reserves, which we now have...read between the lines fuckhead
Damn stratedude, still fucking going on about Iraq?
I thought after getting your position fucked 17 different ways in one night would have left you too sore for more fucking.... but it seems you just plum Forgot. How could you? I bet you forgot you told me you loved me too. Bastard. Or maybe you are just a whore for getting fucked.
But can you at least tell me it was good for you?
Again, you are wrong on every point, and I don't write history books and I don't educate brainwashed fools like you. But as far as the above goes, I first want to point out that this response is just a clear indication that you didn't even understand my point. I said,
"And as far as our 'enemies' go...if you were really that concerned about it, you would never vote a democrat for president ever again."
What I meant by that is that Bill Clinton let America get beat down over and over by terrorists and did little to nothing to prevent any of it. Based on everything I have heard from liberals since then, a Democrat president today would not do anything different today than Clinton did back then. And not only did that embolden the terrorists, but it led to the 9/11 attacks. Under Bush, the attacks on Americans around the world by terrorists have been dramatically reduced.
But if you really want me to respond to what YOU wrote:
I think the Democrat Party was a good party in the early part of the 20th century. But lets get something straight - JFK was the LAST decent Democrat Leader. The mid-60's ushered in a liberal movement that completely destroyed the party. The only reason the Clinton presidency SEEMED great was because it was conveniently nested between the peace from the success of the Gulf War, and the prosperity of the internet boom. And he did a great job of sweeping all of our military actions and defeats at the hands of terrorists under the rug with the help of the liberal media of course.
OK seriously, no more history education for you. I can't waste my time with someone as messed up as you. You're not even in the ballpark and it will take too much effort and time to get you back on track. Read a book, and lay off the Youtube and blogs.
I heard what Cheney said but I can't remember if I heard Powell. But look, Bush 41 was RIGHT. How do I know? Because we had to go back! We should have finished the job. It was a mistake leaving him in Baghdad, and that history lesson will be taught to generals for centuries to come.
stratedude said:
Dammit stratedude, you made a liar of me. I forgot, you guys have one more thing....
Its Clinton's fault! Its always Clinton's fault!
(and sometimes Jimmy Carter's)
Is that you Bill Maher? Your cynicism is too thick to believe. Read between the lines? You need to watch FarenHYPE 9/11. You will see the error in your belief after watching that.
Wow, you amaze me. Seriously though, answer my last question, what specific threat did Saddam pose to America?
He had 5000 rusty old abandoned shells buried in the deserts on the Iranian border. Imagine the tetanus that could have caused.
I hardly call spouting off talking points from Michael Moore, Bill Maher, and other liberal exploiters of the ignorant, "getting my position fucked 17 different ways."
And as for the rest of your post and Phil, and the rest of you - ganging up on me doesn't multiply your score. You guys are too nieve, inexperienced, and/or just plain stupid to see what is really going on here. It's called seeing the forest for the trees. You are getting lied to and it is messing up your thought process, and in turn your judgement. But don't worry. The biggest foil to these lies is wisdom, knowledge and life experience. I believe that most intelligent liberals will see the errors in their liberal thinking in due time. It worked for me, it will work for you too.
First of all, McCain and Petraeus figured out how to get out of the "quagmire". So what is the problem?
You're right. We didn't exactly "HAVE" to. And that is exactly what Saddam was counting on. If we just finished the job in 91 we would have avoided the mess.
Calm down and wait your turn. Can't you see that I am outnumbered? Your post came WAY after the ones I am responding to. Its bad enough that you libs are claiming victory based on the fact that you guys can dump alot if liberal falacies at me at once. Now you are claiming victory by saying I can't answer you fast enough? Get a grip. Can't you see what you are asking me? You are literally asking me to educate you. If you are too ignorant to know why we went to Iraq, why should I be obligated to tell you? Have you stopped and stepped back and read your posts? Sheesh. Now get back in line.
Similar threads
