well, did we win?

[Riot]

Originally Posted by Antitrust32

change your tampon wench

Ah. You can dish it out, but you can't take it. You make a terrible bully. You're a fake.

[Antitrust32]

Originally Posted by Riot

Ah. You can dish it out, but you can't take it. You make a terrible bully. You're a fake.

i dont like fighting with words. I prefer balled up fists.

and if you can read.. you are the one that "dished" it.

But please, pat yourself on your back for me.

[Riot]

Originally Posted by Antitrust32

i dont like fighting with words. I prefer balled up fists.

Yes, people that aren't smart enough to win by words often prefer to fight. Explains your support of Bush invading Iraq.
And nice to know that you think calling someone retarded isn't "starting it". The cognitive dissonance demonstrated by some of you conservatards is astounding.

[bigrun]

Originally Posted by Antitrust32

yeah, I have huge problems with dictators gassing their own people. I'm all for the US taking those people out. Though with an assassination, special op thing.. not a full out war.

you really really think we went to war so Bush get revenge for the hit on his dad? absolutely no way.

at least the "war for Oil" arguement has credibility. the "war for daddy" arguement is not credible.

Daddy one of the reasons,,,Everyone of his 'reasons' proved to non-existent.
If it was oil, why didn't we drain their oilfields?...

According to U.S. President George W. Bush and British Prime Minister Tony Blair, the reasons for the invasion were "to disarm Iraq of weapons of mass destruction, to end Saddam Hussein's alleged support for terrorism, and to free the Iraqi people." However, former chief counter-terrorism adviser on the National Security Council Richard A. Clarke believes Mr. Bush came into office with a plan to invade Iraq. According to Blair, the trigger was Iraq's failure to take a "final opportunity" to disarm itself of nuclear, chemical, and biological weapons that U.S. and British officials called an immediate and intolerable threat to world peace. In 2005, the Central Intelligence Agency released a report saying that no weapons of mass destruction had been found in Iraq.




^ Andrew Buncombe, "Richard Clarke: 'Iraq could be much more of a problem for America than if Saddam had stayed in power', The Monday Interview: Former White House security chief", The Independent, Washington, June 14, 2004..

...how'd that work out...

[Clip-Clop]

People ARE weapons of mass-destruction, particularly brain washed zealots with a sense of purpose and a plan, I think we should have learned that by now, no?
The convenient Bush is a moron argument is always a great one, dumbass was the smartest guy in the room that one day when virtually everyone said "yeah, let's do this."
Based on the mission statement posted above all three points were accomplished.

We didn't invade them because we thought they had chemical weapons. That was the excuse. Stop believing their propaganda.

[bigrun]

Originally Posted by Clip-Clop

People ARE weapons of mass-destruction, particularly brain washed zealots with a sense of purpose and a plan, I think we should have learned that by now, no? ..
15 of the 19 911 terrorists were Saudi's, none from Iraq...why didn't he invade Saudi Arabia?..

The convenient Bush is a moron argument is always a great one, dumbass was the smartest guy in the room that one day when virtually everyone said "yeah, let's do this."
Based on the mission statement posted above all three points were accomplished.

'When Bush stood with his arm around a NY fireman after the 9/11 attacks promising to find whoever did this to the nation, he was every American's president. His polls soared. He had a unique opportunity to unite America, to bring the U.S. together with allies round the world to fight terrorism and hate, to eliminate al-Qaida, to eliminate our vulnerabilities, to strengthen important nations threatened by radicalism. He did NONE of those things..He invaded Iraq!....excerpt from Richard Clarke's book..

Bush's approval rating was 93% at the time of the speech...I was in the 93%...Until March-03....

[Clip-Clop]

Originally Posted by bigrun

'When Bush stood with his arm around a NY fireman after the 9/11 attacks promising to find whoever did this to the nation, he was every American's president. His polls soared. He had a unique opportunity to unite America, to bring the U.S. together with allies round the world to fight terrorism and hate, to eliminate al-Qaida, to eliminate our vulnerabilities, to strengthen important nations threatened by radicalism. He did NONE of those things..He invaded Iraq!....excerpt from Richard Clarke's book..

Bush's approval rating was 93% at the time of the speech...I was in the 93%...Until March-03....

I used your mission statement for Iraq, I didn't make up my own.
Taking out dictators that are unfriendly to US interests is nothing new and was not invented by W. in any way.
Do you think the Arab spring would have even been a consideration in places like Egypt were there not a war going on in Iraq that involved the USA?

[Danzig]

[quote=Clip-Clop;825590]I used your mission statement for Iraq, I didn't make up my own.
Taking out dictators that are unfriendly to US interests is nothing new and was not invented by W. in any way.
Do you think the Arab spring would have even been a consideration in places like Egypt were there not a war going on in Iraq that involved the USA?[/QUOTE]


yes. egypt has always been more progressive than many other countries over there.

and perhaps there'd have been an arab spring in iraq as well. would've been a lot less costly, both in terms of lives and money. people talk about how it was a good thing we went there because of lives saved...what about the lives lost? there were tens of thousands killed.
does anyone miss saddam? no. doesn't mean we should have done what we did. he damn near got toppled after gulf 1; we blew a prime chance then. i'd have to think things would have unfolded there without us being there.

[Clip-Clop]

[quote=Danzig;825593]

Originally Posted by Clip-Clop

I used your mission statement for Iraq, I didn't make up my own.
Taking out dictators that are unfriendly to US interests is nothing new and was not invented by W. in any way.
Do you think the Arab spring would have even been a consideration in places like Egypt were there not a war going on in Iraq that involved the USA?[/QUOTE]


yes. egypt has always been more progressive than many other countries over there.

and perhaps there'd have been an arab spring in iraq as well. would've been a lot less costly, both in terms of lives and money. people talk about how it was a good thing we went there because of lives saved...what about the lives lost? there were tens of thousands killed.
does anyone miss saddam? no. doesn't mean we should have done what we did. he damn near got toppled after gulf 1; we blew a prime chance then. i'd have to think things would have unfolded there without us being there.

That would have happened a long time ago, the fact that the worst of the worst was gone and our presence in the region is exactly what caused (is causing still) the revolutions.
Regarding the lives lost, none would be pleased that anyone here or elsewhere are debating the fact that it was worth nothing.

[Danzig]

[quote=Clip-Clop;825603]

Originally Posted by Danzig

That would have happened a long time ago, the fact that the worst of the worst was gone and our presence in the region is exactly what caused (is causing still) the revolutions.
Regarding the lives lost, none would be pleased that anyone here or elsewhere are debating the fact that it was worth nothing.

i think it's too soon to tell if it'll all be judged worth nothing. depends on how things unfold the next few years. that's why i can't say it's a 'win'. not sure anyone can right now.

[Antitrust32]

Originally Posted by Danzig

[ there were hundreds of thousands killed.
.

ftfy.

the iraq war was horrible. its terrific Saddam is out. still, it does not justify the war.

I am worried that since now we are pulling out all of our troops, that every small thing that was accomplished over there will be lost.

[Clip-Clop]

I am not calling it a win by any means. But a failure it most certainly was not.

[Riot]

Last night, every single one of the Republican candidates for President, except Ron Paul and Jon Huntsman, said they would enlarge the military and aggressively go after Iran pre-emptively.

Romney said he wanted to double the size of ships in the navy, and increase the army troop strength by 100,000.

[jms62]

Originally Posted by Clip-Clop

I am not calling it a win by any means. But a failure it most certainly was not.

Well if you count the Trillion dollars we spent the loss of our boys and the fact they still hate us and it will fall back into chaos as soon as we leave then it was an epic failure.

If the goal was to topple a dicator that dad failed to take out , generate Billions of dollars for Cheny's former company Haliburton then it was an unmitigated success.

Depends how you look at it. My opionion I can give a **** about any dictator as long as they don't **** with us.. I'd be glad to pitch in a couple troops for a unilateral effort.

Civil War Revolution and WWII in my book are the only 3 wars we should have been involved in.

[Riot]

Originally Posted by jms62

Well if you count the Trillion dollars we spent the loss of our boys and the fact they still hate us and it will fall back into chaos as soon as we leave then it was an epic failure.

If the goal was to topple a dicator that dad failed to take out , generate Billions of dollars for Cheny's former company Haliburton then it was an unmitigated success.

^^^^ That.

[bigrun]

Originally Posted by Riot

Last night, every single one of the Republican candidates for President, except Ron Paul and Jon Huntsman, said they would enlarge the military and aggressively go after Iran pre-emptively.

Romney said he wanted to double the size of ships in the navy, and increase the army troop strength by 100,000.

The winds of war blowing again...what is it with these people....
How many of them have kids or grandkids in the Military?

[bigrun]

Originally Posted by Clip-Clop

I used your mission statement for Iraq, I didn't make up my own.
Taking out dictators that are unfriendly to US interests is nothing new and was not invented by W. in any way.
Do you think the Arab spring would have even been a consideration in places like Egypt were there not a war going on in Iraq that involved the USA?

Not my mission statement..

According to U.S. President George W. Bush and British Prime Minister Tony Blair, the reasons for the invasion were "to disarm Iraq of weapons of mass destruction, to end Saddam Hussein's alleged support for terrorism, and to free the Iraqi people."

How many countries have we invaded to 'take out dictators'?...Iraq and...and...and..?

[bigrun]

Originally Posted by Antitrust32

ftfy.

the iraq war was horrible. its terrific Saddam is out. still, it does not justify the war.

I am worried that since now we are pulling out all of our troops, that every small thing that was accomplished over there will be lost.

[bigrun]

Originally Posted by jms62

Well if you count the Trillion dollars we spent the loss of our boys and the fact they still hate us and it will fall back into chaos as soon as we leave then it was an epic failure.

If the goal was to topple a dicator that dad failed to take out , generate Billions of dollars for Cheny's former company Haliburton then it was an unmitigated success.

Depends how you look at it. My opionion I can give a **** about any dictator as long as they don't **** with us.. I'd be glad to pitch in a couple troops for a unilateral effort.

Civil War Revolution and WWII in my book are the only 3 wars we should have been involved in.

Bush1 didn't fail to take Saddam out....He had some sense...His son should have read dad's book on why he didn't advance on Baghdad and saddam..