TheSilencer1313
Well-Known Member
Oh my bad, that was misread.
I think we were all for Afghanistan at the time, because we were dooped by the administration.
Interestingly enough, Ron Paul was not dooped and voted against it.
Seriously? No thread on the Iowa caucuses yet?
- Thread starter LogGrad98
- Start date
Oh my bad, that was misread.
I think we were all for Afghanistan at the time, because we were dooped by the administration.
Interestingly enough, Ron Paul was not dooped and voted against it.
Caption the following pic
And then Marcus Bachmann showed me his...
TheSilencer1313
Well-Known Member
So you're telling me that right after 9/11, when all the shock hit everyone. You weren't pissed, and ready for our country to run into these wars??
If not, then you were smarter than most.
Me... I was only 15 at the time, so I obviously didn't get it.
LOL Much better than the fail that TheSilencer1313 put up!
Might I interest you in a free online copy of the Constitution? You shouldn't be oblivious to what is spells out if you're throwing around "unconstitutional" like a rebel flag waving redneck getting ready to brush his tooth.
Our perception doesn't = their perception.
They obviously saw a huge difference between broadcasts of Bill Clinton bragging about killing innocent civilians and bombing aspirin factories, and Bush 1 liberating defenseless Kuwait from Hussein's chemical warfare. If anything, Iraqi civilians were supportive of Bush 1 stopping the dictator's crimes against humanity. Then Clinton comes along bombing the hell out of whatever looks remotely close to a WMD factory, like having a white roof or being surrounded by sand... and perception got flushed right back down the toilet.
Bush eventually turned the perception back to positive and the Iraqi civilians are now grateful to him for returning their country to them.
There's plenty of indications of support for bombing and for arming rebels. I asked specifically about an invasion. Anything about military steps, force, action, or other more generic terms could ust as easily apply to the bombings that occured.
That said, I certainly acknowledge that the Democrats were far from a "live-and-let-live" mentality.
I guess sending missiles and drones into foreign countries does not count as an invasion. It is so much more humane to kill the enemy with robotic equipment. Or starve them with oppresive sanctions.
I don't recall saying anything about it being humane.
You're right, you didn't.
Dude, you've only been back for a while, and I'm having a hell of a time trying to figure out your 'real' posts from your 'watch this, I'm going to troll this moron' ones. I'm not sure where the quote above falls, but I fear it falls in the 'real' category. Please, PM or something so I can salvage the little respect I still had for you. (you lost most of your cred (yo) with the crappiest name ever invented, treyBurc or whatever... /gag)
All my posts are real, unless whinylOne is involved. I wear my emotions on my shoulder; deal with it.
I don't understand what you disagree with about the underlined section. Please expound. Maybe I should have put "returned to... from dictator"?
Is this about my health care thread? Because that contains a very fundamental point which is being mostly overlooked out of political expediency. If anyone feels trolled by it then they should take a deep breath and transition from an emotional to an analytical state of mind.
**Edit** One more thing, I should probably invent 8 or 9 different screen names like a few do on here to troll, eh?
Last edited:
Well, despite my fear that you'll lose respect for me more than you already have...
The first Gulf War was an easy call. The entire world was outraged by Iraq's attack and occupation of Kuwait. Some might argue that was the right time to remove Saddam, but Bush senior made the call to accept Saddam's surrender. The surrender was on the condition that he allow international inspectors in to verify that his chemical weapons were destroyed. He never fully cooperated with that condition of his surrender. Clinton removed inspectors in '98 in favor of tougher sanctions. If It was me in the White House the inspectors would have been accompanied by a military escort, and they would have continued their inspections one way or another. If the escort was met with force it would have started the 2nd round of the Gulf War 5 years sooner and would have had clear justification. Sanctions (which I consider worse than honest combat) would have been avoided, saving the lives of many women and children. That would have prevented sanctions to be used as PR against the U.S. creating resentment among Iraqis that has probably motivated at least a few of the IED planters and suicide bombers to attack our troops.
GVC
Well-Known Member
And, again (apparently I wasn't clear), I didn't enter to discuss reception of US intervention in Iraq. I was just trying to point out that American policy re: Iraq was fairly consistent across political lines for over 20 years leading up to the Iraq War (I think it was Kissinger who said something to the effect that either an Iraqi or Iranian victory in the Iran-Iraq War would be bad for America...Which makes sense, given that the US played both sides of that conflict). Painting the Democrats as blood thirsty and the Republicans as pacifists forced into action by political realities is more than a little disingenuous.
TheSilencer1313
Well-Known Member
Yeah you should send me a copy of the ****ing constitution and the bill of rights, because I obviously have no ****ing idea!!
TheSilencer1313
Well-Known Member
And **** you again, because you have no clue which this country was founded upon you neo-conservative moron.
And you just lost any point you were trying to make by losing your cool. You know what you know so who cares what others think. Relax man
Honestly, pimphand, it looks like you're trying to get under my skin but I'll give you the benefit if the doubt because you deserve it. I agree with what I just quoted. I have a knack of saying things without meaning to so why don't you show me where I've said otherwise so I can correct it. I read back through and all I can see is you buying more into the back and forth between one brow and me than was there.
I pointed out a bipartisan letter to Clinton so I don't see how you think im claiming republicans as pacifist. Maybe you overlooked that.
GVC
Well-Known Member
I actually misread part of the post I initially responded to (having now re-read it...I was also having a little hyperbolic fun). It likely had something to do with you citing Guiliani talking about leveraging war time politics for personal gain (for whatever reason, I can't stand that douche), although I suppose he knows quite a bit about that.
I try not to get involved in discussions like these because I'm ignorant about the subject matter. With that said, it certainly doesn't seem (to me, with my limited knowledge and understanding) that the US's conflict in Iraq which culminated in the Iraq War started in 1998, as you claimed. I find it hard to believe that the US's involvement in the Iran-Iraq War, the Gulf War, Clinton-era actions involving Iraq and the Iraq War doesn't represent an escalation over time of a single conflict.
I realize this is pretty simple analysis, rooted in a lot of conjecture and little knowledge/understanding of American-Iraqi relations (or the motivations the US had in the 3 conflicts...again, I could of course speculate based on the limited facts, if they can be called that, at my disposal), and I'm not trying to be a dick. I was probably just high and bored...The Jazz had 2 days off. I may actually bow out for real now.
But probably not.