Time to invade Pakistan!

[Turbo RX-6]

Originally Posted by DonWG

What would you have us do then, Mr. Weester (the all wise).

He'd do like Obama wants to do, he'd pull out, then when all hell breaks loose and we lose all our gains, he'd send the troops back in to start not just at square one again, but in a far, far worse situation then the first time.

[UNGN]

Originally Posted by henschman

give me a quote where anybody in the government gave that as a reason to invade. it wasn't there! we invaded mostly out of fears of a WMD program, and secondarily, to depose Saddam. The neocons knew the real reason why they wanted to invade -- the whole "domino effect" theory i mentioned earlier. of course they didn't publicize that motivation for the invasion, because there is no way the invasion would receive public support based on a strategy that idiotic.

It was a military operation. If we were to say HEY bad guys! come to Iraq to get killed! that wouldn't have worked.

The adminstration used the code words "fight them over there so we don't have to fight them here", which was in the rhetoric from the very beginning.

Originally Posted by henschman

Also, if all we needed was a place in the middle east to put our troops so we could dangle them out there like bait and have all the america-haters come try to kill them (a laughable enough policy), we had plenty of people stationed in Afghanistan. Where were the tens of thousands of insurgents coming to fight them there?

Afghanistan is too remote and inaccessible to attract large numbers of Saudis, Syrians, Libyans, algerians, etc. to fight.

The plan was to use the Kurds and the Shia in Iraq to help kick Sunni islamist ass. At least that was the plan.

The Kurds are our buddies and will remain so forever, but the shia don't trust us since we screwed them over in gulf war 1.

The administration under estimated how much the Democrats would politicize it and throw in the towel 1/2 way thru.

I'm still trying to figure out how Korea isn't 100% dark at night instead of 50% dark. If today's Democrats were running the show in 1952, instead of yesterday's democrats, Korea and Japan would be a pretty F'd up place right now, if not a nuclear wasteland.

We had 10X the loss of life in 1/2 the time in Korea and yet its was a Great Victory and Harry Truman was one of the greatest Democrat Presidents Ever (at least he was until 2003, when the modern Democrat party disowned him as a "warmonger").

[Weester]

"He'd do like Obama wants to do, he'd pull out, then when all hell breaks loose and we lose all our gains, he'd send the troops back in to start not just at square one again, but in a far, far worse situation then the first time."

Wrong again, oh foolish one..................Get out and stay out!!!!

Bring our troops home and let them rot in H@ll!

[Turbo RX-6]

Originally Posted by Weester

"He'd do like Obama wants to do, he'd pull out, then when all hell breaks loose and we lose all our gains, he'd send the troops back in to start not just at square one again, but in a far, far worse situation then the first time."

Wrong again, oh foolish one..................Get out and stay out!!!!

Bring our troops home and let them rot in H@ll!

Hey Dumbass, that is exactly what he said he would do, would you like to see the video, so I guess that kinda makes anyone supporting him the ones who are actually foolish, doesn't it.

The realityt is, he isn't about to pull all the troops out, he said as much again today. But go ahead and vote for him on that platform, how did that work for ya with the last election.

Oh, I know, obstructionist Republicans, how could the Democrats have known that the Republicans wouldn't support a complete pull out, and how could they have known that they wouldn't have enough votes to override a veto if they passed legislation for a pullout, they couldn't have could they, or wait, maybe they lied for your vote, just like Obama did with his complete pullout rhetoric.

ROTFL


You are truly pathetic

[UNGN]

I have said all along that a Democrat President will never Pull out of Iraq and possibly be blamed if it all went to hell.

This why they harped on Bush so hard to pull out of Iraq... so they could blame him for the consequences of their stupid idea.

They got Bush I for his "no new taxes" pledge, though all he did was sign a Democrat Tax bill.

The closer we get to the election, the more Obama will back away from "pulling troops out of Iraq" for fear that he might actually win and then have to do something he said he would do.

[Weester]

Originally Posted by Turbo RX-6

Hey Dumbass, that is exactly what he said he would do, would you like to see the video, so I guess that kinda makes anyone supporting him the ones who are actually foolish, doesn't it.

The realityt is, he isn't about to pull all the troops out, he said as much again today. But go ahead and vote for him on that platform, how did that work for ya with the last election.

Oh, I know, obstructionist Republicans, how could the Democrats have known that the Republicans wouldn't support a complete pull out, and how could they have known that they wouldn't have enough votes to override a veto if they passed legislation for a pullout, they couldn't have could they, or wait, maybe they lied for your vote, just like Obama did with his complete pullout rhetoric.

ROTFL


You are truly pathetic

Pssssssssssst, I'm voting for McCain......................doh!!!

My personal opinion is that we get out and stay out!!!!!!

[Turbo RX-6]

Originally Posted by Weester

Pssssssssssst, I'm voting for McCain......................doh!!!

My personal opinion is that we get out and stay out!!!!!!

Hey Psssssssssssssssssssssssst. Doesn't matter who you vote for, you are constantly on the bandwagon for an Iraq pullout, that's the subject.

[henschman]

Originally Posted by UNGN

It was a military operation. If we were to say HEY bad guys! come to Iraq to get killed! that wouldn't have worked.

The adminstration used the code words "fight them over there so we don't have to fight them here", which was in the rhetoric from the very beginning.








Afghanistan is too remote and inaccessible to attract large numbers of Saudis, Syrians, Libyans, algerians, etc. to fight.

The plan was to use the Kurds and the Shia in Iraq to help kick Sunni islamist ass. At least that was the plan.

The Kurds are our buddies and will remain so forever, but the shia don't trust us since we screwed them over in gulf war 1.

The administration under estimated how much the Democrats would politicize it and throw in the towel 1/2 way thru.

I'm still trying to figure out how Korea isn't 100% dark at night instead of 50% dark. If today's Democrats were running the show in 1952, instead of yesterday's democrats, Korea and Japan would be a pretty F'd up place right now, if not a nuclear wasteland.

We had 10X the loss of life in 1/2 the time in Korea and yet its was a Great Victory and Harry Truman was one of the greatest Democrat Presidents Ever (at least he was until 2003, when the modern Democrat party disowned him as a "warmonger").

Do you know why the Korean War happened in the first place? It was because we got involved in trying to impose a government on a people who were tired of foreigners running their country and wanted to govern themselves. Also, we gave our sovereignty up to a new organization called the United Nations. When fighting broke out, we were dragged into the war under a UN mandate -- not by a declaration of war from our own congress, like the Constitution requires. And did you seriously call the Korean War a "Great Victory?" At best, it was a tie. we were pushing the north koreans back, but we ignored Chinese demands that we not come too close to their territory. They sent in troops, and they pushed us back to the current border at the 38th Parallel, where we signed a cease-fire.

and Afghanistan is "too inaccessible" for extremists to come fight us there? ha! tell that to the soviets! Fighters swarmed into that country from all over the middle east to fight the commies when they invaded. They did not in our case. Hmm, could the difference be that perhaps the Soviet invasion was seen for the unjustified, aggressive invasion that it was, but our involvement there was understood and accepted as a defensive measure against a government who harbored, helped, and encouraged the people who attacked our nation? Are you telling me that in the 70s and 80s, muslim fighters were able to swarm into the country to expel the infidel hordes... yet in 2001 they really really wanted to, but they just couldn't figure out a way to get there? come on, who are you kidding? Our war against the terrorists had the support of the world, including most of the middle east, until we invaded a non-threatening country that had nothing to do with our national security. then, they started to perceive that our "war on terror" was just an excuse to invade their region and set up more permanent bases to better police and regulate affairs in their part of the world. many people there quite reasonably felt threatened by that.

[UNGN]

Originally Posted by henschman

Do you know why the Korean War happened in the first place? It was because we got involved in trying to impose a government on a people who were tired of foreigners running their country and wanted to govern themselves. Also, we gave our sovereignty up to a new organization called the United Nations. When fighting broke out, we were dragged into the war under a UN mandate -- not by a declaration of war from our own congress, like the Constitution requires. And did you seriously call the Korean War a "Great Victory?" At best, it was a tie. we were pushing the north koreans back, but we ignored Chinese demands that we not come too close to their territory. They sent in troops, and they pushed us back to the current border at the 38th Parallel, where we signed a cease-fire.

The Korean war happened because it was a surrogate war between the Communists and the forces of anti communism. It had very little to do with Korean's thoughts about foreigners.

I didn't call Korea a Great Victory. That was sarcasm. DEMOCRATS were hailing Harry Truman as one of the GREATEST DEMOCRAT PRESIDENTS EVER!!!! until 2003, when he was disowned by the party, because of the obvious hypocrisy. Bill Clinton Himself has said Truman was one of his favorite Presidents... of course before Iraq.

So A guy who gets us into a war where 15,000 Americans are killed per year, and in ends in a stalemate is a "Great President"... "One of the best", while Bush gets 700 killed per year, but wins and he is the "Worst President, Ever".

Originally Posted by henschman

and Afghanistan is "too inaccessible" for extremists to come fight us there? ha! tell that to the soviets! Fighters swarmed into that country from all over the middle east to fight the commies when they invaded. They did not in our case. Hmm, could the difference be that perhaps the Soviet invasion was seen for the unjustified, aggressive invasion that it was, but our involvement there was understood and accepted as a defensive measure against a government who harbored, helped, and encouraged the people who attacked our nation? Are you telling me that in the 70s and 80s, muslim fighters were able to swarm into the country to expel the infidel hordes... yet in 2001 they really really wanted to, but they just couldn't figure out a way to get there? come on, who are you kidding?

If we wanted a war that drug out for 25 years, Afghanistan would be perfect

If you've haven't noticed, there are no caves to hide in in Irag and the borders between neighboring countries aren't remote Mountain ranges.

Afghanistan will still have "Al Queda" running around there 20 years from now, when Iraq is building a KFC on every street corner.

Originally Posted by henschman

Our war against the terrorists had the support of the world, including most of the middle east, until we invaded a non-threatening country that had nothing to do with our national security. then, they started to perceive that our "war on terror" was just an excuse to invade their region and set up more permanent bases to better police and regulate affairs in their part of the world. many people there quite reasonably felt threatened by that.

Iraq was not a "Non-threatening" country under Saddam. He threatened people all the time. Every major Democrat told us this in 1998.

It IS a Non-threatening country now, however and because we took him out, others like him will think twice before acting like him.

[Weester]

Henchman,

I would vote for ya if you ran for president....................

[UNGN]

Originally Posted by Weester

Henchman,

I would vote for ya if you ran for president....................

He only has 142 less days on the Senate floor than Barrak Obama, so maybe he wouldn't be a bad choice.

[IEATV8S]

Originally Posted by UNGN

He only has 142 less days on the Senate floor than Barrak Obama, so maybe he wouldn't be a bad choice.

And I'm sure HENSCHMAN wouldn't VOTE PRESENT on any bill brought up before HIM!