LOL Much better than the fail that TheSilencer1313 put up!
Seriously? No thread on the Iowa caucuses yet?
- Thread starter LogGrad98
- Start date
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!!