# Shrub's invasion of Iraq justifies Putin's invasion of Crimea



## hangover (Mar 10, 2014)

What goes around comes around. One bully deserves another. Putin is serving notice that the U.S. is not the only super power bully. Sure looks like Raygun didn't win the cold war after all.
Shrub destroyed all U.S. credibility and integrity with the Iraq invasion. Putin hasn't learned that lesson yet, but I bet he does. 
This could make the whole global economy come unraveled. That's what Obama is trying to prevent. If it happens, all those U.S. corporations will lose their asses. China kicks them out and takes their factories. Then we don't have all that cheap Chinese product, and we don't make anything in this country, so we are shit out of luck. China takes over trade with central and south America, and then we don't have cheap groceries from them either. China has many more hungry mouths to feed.
No food, no clothes, no nothing. You better hope Obama doesn't fail.


----------



## Lonestar_logic (Mar 10, 2014)

hangover said:


> What goes around comes around. One bully deserves another. Putin is serving notice that the U.S. is not the only super power bully. Sure looks like Raygun didn't win the cold war after all.
> Shrub destroyed all U.S. credibility and integrity with the Iraq invasion. Putin hasn't learned that lesson yet, but I bet he does.
> This could make the whole global economy come unraveled. That's what Obama is trying to prevent. If it happens, all those U.S. corporations will lose their asses. China kicks them out and takes their factories. Then we don't have all that cheap Chinese product, and we don't make anything in this country, so we are shit out of luck. China takes over trade with central and south America, and then we don't have cheap groceries from them either. China has many more hungry mouths to feed.
> No food, no clothes, no nothing. You better hope Obama doesn't fail.



How many UN sanctions did Crimea violate? How many Crimeans were murdered by their government?


----------



## Kevin_Kennedy (Mar 10, 2014)

Nonsense. Two wrongs don't make a right. Though it should be pointed out that Putin's "invasion" has nothing in common with the invasion of Iraq.


----------



## Redfish (Mar 10, 2014)

hangover said:


> What goes around comes around. One bully deserves another. Putin is serving notice that the U.S. is not the only super power bully. Sure looks like Raygun didn't win the cold war after all.
> Shrub destroyed all U.S. credibility and integrity with the Iraq invasion. Putin hasn't learned that lesson yet, but I bet he does.
> This could make the whole global economy come unraveled. That's what Obama is trying to prevent. If it happens, all those U.S. corporations will lose their asses. China kicks them out and takes their factories. Then we don't have all that cheap Chinese product, and we don't make anything in this country, so we are shit out of luck. China takes over trade with central and south America, and then we don't have cheap groceries from them either. China has many more hungry mouths to feed.
> No food, no clothes, no nothing. You better hope Obama doesn't fail.



Obama has already failed.  Have you priced a steak lately?  

Obama's planned destruction of our economy is going exactly as planned, and idiots like you keep calling for more.

Calling Bush shrub just shows that you are nothing but a partisan asshole who is incapable of original thought.  

you have the mind of a junior high kid with an IQ of 15.


----------



## bendog (Mar 10, 2014)

Not really, but Bushii screwed the pooch.  Direct intervention in other countries doesn't often work, especially when its unilateral.  In Iraq, there was no doubt the sunnis were mistreating the kurds and shiaa, and W actually was trying to create a representative democracy.  That's hardly the case in Crimea, and Putin really wanted to carve off the entire eastern part of Ukraine.


----------



## BlindBoo (Mar 10, 2014)

hangover said:


> What goes around comes around. One bully deserves another. Putin is serving notice that the U.S. is not the only super power bully. Sure looks like Raygun didn't win the cold war after all.
> Shrub destroyed all U.S. credibility and integrity with the Iraq invasion. Putin hasn't learned that lesson yet, but I bet he does.
> This could make the whole global economy come unraveled. That's what Obama is trying to prevent. If it happens, all those U.S. corporations will lose their asses. China kicks them out and takes their factories. Then we don't have all that cheap Chinese product, and we don't make anything in this country, so we are shit out of luck. China takes over trade with central and south America, and then we don't have cheap groceries from them either. China has many more hungry mouths to feed.
> No food, no clothes, no nothing. You better hope Obama doesn't fail.



Oh come on, Crimea is right next door to Russia.  Iraq was on the other side of the world.  So we're a much better super-bully.  President Bush did destroyed the precedent of international response to aggression his father helped to achieve in the First Gulf War, but I don't think that has any thing to do with Russia taking the Crimea back from a Ukraine that wants to align with the EU.


----------



## longknife (Mar 10, 2014)

5 years + and the ignorant left-wingers still have no better argument than to blame President Bush for all the ills of the world and the outright failure of Obozo!

Disgusting.


----------



## BlindBoo (Mar 10, 2014)

Redfish said:


> hangover said:
> 
> 
> > What goes around comes around. One bully deserves another. Putin is serving notice that the U.S. is not the only super power bully. Sure looks like Raygun didn't win the cold war after all.
> ...



And people who call Obama Obozo or worse are what?  Intelligent, thought provoking personalities?


----------



## Contumacious (Mar 10, 2014)

hangover said:


> What goes around comes around. One bully deserves another. Putin is serving notice that the U.S. is not the only super power bully..



Incorrect.

The US is special.

When the US president does it it means is NOT a crime.

But when the Russian Prime Minister does it means is terrible, awful , sanctionable.

.

.


----------



## buckeye45_73 (Mar 10, 2014)

Contumacious said:


> hangover said:
> 
> 
> > What goes around comes around. One bully deserves another. Putin is serving notice that the U.S. is not the only super power bully..
> ...



What small minds, both invasions are the same as the battle of hastings and germanys invasion of poland, theyre all the same    /sarcasm


----------



## Synthaholic (Mar 10, 2014)

We have no national security interests in Crimea or Ukraine.  So why are the wingnuts whining about us not doing anything?


----------



## CrusaderFrank (Mar 10, 2014)

The funny part is watching how Liberals filter any bad thing that's Obama's fault onto Bush.

1. Event
2. Obama > Bush Excuse Sausage Factory Explanation
3. It's Bush's Fault


----------



## bedowin62 (Mar 10, 2014)

the Left; idiots that they are talking out of both sides of their mouths; likes to pretend how different they are; but cant even begin to defend obama without filtering everything they say through Bush

idiots and hypocrites


----------



## bedowin62 (Mar 10, 2014)

Synthaholic said:


> We have no national security interests in Crimea or Ukraine.  So why are the wingnuts whining about us not doing anything?





just curious leftard; where in your opinion do we have national security interests?


----------



## bedowin62 (Mar 10, 2014)

BlindBoo said:


> hangover said:
> 
> 
> > What goes around comes around. One bully deserves another. Putin is serving notice that the U.S. is not the only super power bully. Sure looks like Raygun didn't win the cold war after all.
> ...



actually leftard Bush built a large coalition in Iraq

on the other hand obama couldnt get a single county on board with him to address slaughter in Syria


libs are losers who lie to themselves


----------



## Synthaholic (Mar 10, 2014)

bedowin62 said:


> Synthaholic said:
> 
> 
> > We have no national security interests in Crimea or Ukraine.  So why are the wingnuts whining about us not doing anything?
> ...


What's our national interest in Ukraine or Crimea?


----------



## buckeye45_73 (Mar 10, 2014)

Synthaholic said:


> We have no national security interests in Crimea or Ukraine. So why are the wingnuts whining about us not doing anything?


 
 well it certainly isn't anyone's business, and if Russia wanted to take Germany, hey it's all good, eh comrade?


----------



## Synthaholic (Mar 10, 2014)

bedowin62 said:


> BlindBoo said:
> 
> 
> > hangover said:
> ...


You're drooling on your keyboard.


----------



## bedowin62 (Mar 10, 2014)

obama couldnt even get the United Nations the loony Left thinks so highly of; let alone one of our friends, to get on board to do anything about slaughter going on in Syria; i guess it's like a LWNJ is saying here; we dont have any national security interests there either (obama said it mus be addressed on humanitarian grounds; but that too fell by the wayside)

libs are losers who lie to themselves


----------



## bedowin62 (Mar 10, 2014)

Synthaholic said:


> bedowin62 said:
> 
> 
> > Synthaholic said:
> ...



are you supposed to answer a question with a question?


----------



## Synthaholic (Mar 10, 2014)

buckeye45_73 said:


> Synthaholic said:
> 
> 
> > We have no national security interests in Crimea or Ukraine. So why are the wingnuts whining about us not doing anything?
> ...


Oh, are Republicans back to wanting to police the world?

Figure out how to pay for it, or is it credit card time again?


----------



## Synthaholic (Mar 10, 2014)

bedowin62 said:


> Synthaholic said:
> 
> 
> > bedowin62 said:
> ...



I made a statement: we have no national security interest in either country.

If you believe we do, then tell us why.


----------



## buckeye45_73 (Mar 10, 2014)

Synthaholic said:


> bedowin62 said:
> 
> 
> > Synthaholic said:
> ...


 
 directly none, same with Kuwait, but in larger geopolitics, it's good not to have Russia taking over countries. I mean ask all your Hollywood friends that bitch about Tibet.


----------



## buckeye45_73 (Mar 10, 2014)

Synthaholic said:


> buckeye45_73 said:
> 
> 
> > Synthaholic said:
> ...


 

 Since when did liberals care about paying for anything? Are you for a shutdown? Oh wait only the military, every other program we can just put on the credit card.....gotcha


----------



## Synthaholic (Mar 10, 2014)

buckeye45_73 said:


> Synthaholic said:
> 
> 
> > bedowin62 said:
> ...



We didn't have a national security interest in protecting Kuwaiti ports in the Persian Gulf, against Saddam's invasion?

There's not much we can or should do regarding Ukraine.  Europe is too dependent on Russian energy (another reason to go solar/renewable) to impose any meaningful sanctions - they would just be sanctioning themselves.  And out sanctions can't do anything on their own.

So unless you are advocating putting American lives at risk in a shooting war with Russia, I don't know what you expect, except the opportunity to take cheap shots at our country's leader.


----------



## Synthaholic (Mar 10, 2014)

buckeye45_73 said:


> Synthaholic said:
> 
> 
> > buckeye45_73 said:
> ...




Obama has cut the deficit in half.  Government spending is down in every area of the Federal government.

Didn't answer my question:  are you wanting to police the world again? How are you going to pay for it?


----------



## blackhawk (Mar 10, 2014)

Would this be the same Iraq invasion many Democrats voted for?


----------



## bedowin62 (Mar 10, 2014)

Synthaholic said:


> buckeye45_73 said:
> 
> 
> > Synthaholic said:
> ...





policing the world? what was obama doing when he rained missiles on libya?
 besides allowing al qaeida to replace qaddaffi



idiots and hypocrites


----------



## Synthaholic (Mar 10, 2014)

blackhawk said:


> Would this be the same Iraq invasion many Democrats voted for?


Democrats didn't vote for an invasion.  

This has been proven time and time again, yet you'll continue to spread the lie.


----------



## bedowin62 (Mar 10, 2014)

Synthaholic said:


> buckeye45_73 said:
> 
> 
> > Synthaholic said:
> ...



government spending is not down you self-deceiving idiot

 it's up by just over 5%

when you say government spending is down you mean on the state and local level you idiot. federal spending is up; and obama has nothing to do with state and local spending


----------



## R.C. Christian (Mar 10, 2014)

Synthaholic said:


> We have no national security interests in Crimea or Ukraine.  So why are the wingnuts whining about us not doing anything?



Foreign policy comprehension FAIL ^^^^^^

Genius, do you have any idea how stupid you sound? Had Obama not believe there was a national interest in curbing the threat of a rising Russia and it's Chinese buddies then he wouldn't have allowed the neocons that push his buttons to get involved in and fuck up this pathetic attempt at a color revolution in the Ukraine, hence a missile shield in the Ukraine. It's all about weakening Russia and maintaining the empire.


----------



## Quantum Windbag (Mar 10, 2014)

hangover said:


> What goes around comes around. One bully deserves another. Putin is serving notice that the U.S. is not the only super power bully. Sure looks like Raygun didn't win the cold war after all.
> Shrub destroyed all U.S. credibility and integrity with the Iraq invasion. Putin hasn't learned that lesson yet, but I bet he does.
> This could make the whole global economy come unraveled. That's what Obama is trying to prevent. If it happens, all those U.S. corporations will lose their asses. China kicks them out and takes their factories. Then we don't have all that cheap Chinese product, and we don't make anything in this country, so we are shit out of luck. China takes over trade with central and south America, and then we don't have cheap groceries from them either. China has many more hungry mouths to feed.
> No food, no clothes, no nothing. You better hope Obama doesn't fail.



You should stop posting after drinking all night long.


----------



## Lonestar_logic (Mar 10, 2014)

Synthaholic said:


> buckeye45_73 said:
> 
> 
> > Synthaholic said:
> ...


 He cut is own trillion dollar budget in half you moron!


----------



## Mac1958 (Mar 10, 2014)

.

When you treat the planet as your own personal military playpen, you can't be terribly surprised or indignant when someone else does the same thing.

We don't own the patent.

.


----------



## Quantum Windbag (Mar 10, 2014)

Synthaholic said:


> We have no national security interests in Crimea or Ukraine.  So why are the wingnuts whining about us not doing anything?



Obama is the one doing the most whinging, is that because he is the biggest wingnut?


----------



## bedowin62 (Mar 10, 2014)

Synthaholic said:


> blackhawk said:
> 
> 
> > Would this be the same Iraq invasion many Democrats voted for?
> ...





yes they did vote to authorize an invasion. y ou losers never stop making excuses for your votes.. and the size of the federal government is up under obama; yet you continue to spread the lie that is is smaller


----------



## BlindBoo (Mar 10, 2014)

bedowin62 said:


> BlindBoo said:
> 
> 
> > hangover said:
> ...



Look, we were the aggressors in Iraq and all the countries that signed onto the invasion and occupation were too.  Got it?  The world wouldn't respond against the aggressor because they all wanted the Iraqi oil on the world market too.

Iraq returns as world's fastest-growing oil exporter | Reuters

The world's leading oil companies have been expanding Iraq's giant southern fields - Rumaila led by BP, West Qurna-1 run by Exxon and Zubair operated by Eni - since 2010 when they signed a series of service contracts with Baghdad.

That revival, now into its fifth year, prompted Iraq to set an export target of 3.4 million bpd for 2014, including 400,000 bpd from the Kurdistan region, implying output of 4 million bpd, including oil used internally.


----------



## bedowin62 (Mar 10, 2014)

BlindBoo said:


> bedowin62 said:
> 
> 
> > BlindBoo said:
> ...




yawn; a whole bunch of nothing. 

what country that has oil doesnt go tget it and sell it?


----------



## The Breeze (Mar 10, 2014)

Synthaholic said:


> bedowin62 said:
> 
> 
> > Synthaholic said:
> ...



For a brief period, Ukraine was the worlds third-largest nuclear power.

It gave up thousands of nuclear warheads inherited from the Soviet Union in return for a 1994 promise from the U.S. and Russia not to use force or threaten military action against the newly independent nation, a pledge Russian President Vladimir Putin repudiated yesterday after his troops took control of Ukraines Crimea peninsula. 

Ukraine Gave Up Nuclear Arms in 1994 Deal Russia Flouts - Bloomberg


----------



## Kevin_Kennedy (Mar 10, 2014)

buckeye45_73 said:


> Synthaholic said:
> 
> 
> > bedowin62 said:
> ...



Russia hasn't taken over the Ukraine.


----------



## BlindBoo (Mar 10, 2014)

bedowin62 said:


> BlindBoo said:
> 
> 
> > bedowin62 said:
> ...



You think Iraq wasn't selling their oil before the Bush Invasion and Occupation de-nationalized their oil fields?


----------



## IlarMeilyr (Mar 10, 2014)

hangover said:


> What goes around comes around. One bully deserves another. Putin is serving notice that the U.S. is not the only super power bully. Sure looks like Raygun didn't win the cold war after all.
> Shrub destroyed all U.S. credibility and integrity with the Iraq invasion. Putin hasn't learned that lesson yet, but I bet he does.
> This could make the whole global economy come unraveled. That's what Obama is trying to prevent. If it happens, all those U.S. corporations will lose their asses. China kicks them out and takes their factories. Then we don't have all that cheap Chinese product, and we don't make anything in this country, so we are shit out of luck. China takes over trade with central and south America, and then we don't have cheap groceries from them either. China has many more hungry mouths to feed.
> No food, no clothes, no nothing. You better hope Obama doesn't fail.



^ that is massively illogical, baseless and pretty fucking dumb.  

First of all, W did not invade Iraq.  The United States liberated Iraq from the scumbag mass murdering cock-bite, Saddam Hussein.

The Russian invasion of Ukraine was not one of liberation.  It was one fucking imperialistic scumbag's (i.e., Putin's) unlawful effort to deny another country's people  the freedom to change their own government.  

Your sophistry and efforts at false equivalence are pretty laughable.


----------



## bendog (Mar 10, 2014)

Kevin_Kennedy said:


> buckeye45_73 said:
> 
> 
> > Synthaholic said:
> ...



No offense, but the post didn't assert Putin had done so, but a blind squirrel couldn't help but notice Putin's rattling the sabres in the eastern Ukraine.


----------



## Synthaholic (Mar 10, 2014)

R.C. Christian said:


> Synthaholic said:
> 
> 
> > We have no national security interests in Crimea or Ukraine.  So why are the wingnuts whining about us not doing anything?
> ...


What are our national security interests in Crimea or Ukraine?


----------



## Kevin_Kennedy (Mar 10, 2014)

bendog said:


> Kevin_Kennedy said:
> 
> 
> > buckeye45_73 said:
> ...



"It's good not to have Russia taking over countries."

It was certainly implied that Russia had done so. Rattling sabers, absolutely, but he hasn't taken over anything.


----------



## bendog (Mar 10, 2014)

IlarMeilyr said:


> hangover said:
> 
> 
> > What goes around comes around. One bully deserves another. Putin is serving notice that the U.S. is not the only super power bully. Sure looks like Raygun didn't win the cold war after all.
> ...


We invaded Iraq to liberate it.  No reason to beat around the bush  (-:  Give W his due.  He was trying to promote representative democracy in the ME.  I'd call it a fool's errand, but Putin is simply trying to have less economically successful representative democracies in his neighborhood.

Nobody said America was perfect, but there's a reason people want to live here.  We need to call putin for what putin is.


----------



## Synthaholic (Mar 10, 2014)

Lonestar_logic said:


> Synthaholic said:
> 
> 
> > buckeye45_73 said:
> ...


*Obama says deficit is falling at the fastest rate in 60 years*


----------



## Contumacious (Mar 10, 2014)

IlarMeilyr said:


> First of all, W did not invade Iraq.  The United States liberated Iraq from the scumbag mass murdering cock-bite, Saddam Hussein.




*HUH*



in·vade
in&#712;v&#257;d/Submit
verb
1.
(of an armed force or its commander) enter (a country or region) so as to subjugate or occupy it



> The Russian invasion of Ukraine was not one of liberation.  It was one fucking imperialistic scumbag's (i.e., Putin's) unlawful effort to deny another country's people  the freedom to change their own government.
> 
> Your sophistry and efforts at false equivalence are pretty laughable.




Probably.

But 60% of Crimeans are Russians and support the Russian presence.

Were 60% of Iraqis Americans?!?!?!?

.


----------



## IlarMeilyr (Mar 10, 2014)

Synthaholic said:


> R.C. Christian said:
> 
> 
> > Synthaholic said:
> ...



At the (huge) risk of sounding like I might agree with Synthia's position, I guess that risk has to be assumed, for I am equally curious:

What *are* our national security interests in Crimea or Ukraine?

By asking that question I am not denying that we might have some actual national security interest in what happens there.  We might, I suppose.  I am just looking to see if there is any consensus view of what such interest(s) might be.


----------



## blackhawk (Mar 10, 2014)

Synthaholic said:


> blackhawk said:
> 
> 
> > Would this be the same Iraq invasion many Democrats voted for?
> ...



Yes they did lie to yourself don't waste my time with your partisan delusion.


----------



## Redfish (Mar 10, 2014)

BlindBoo said:


> Redfish said:
> 
> 
> > hangover said:
> ...



the comparison to a clown is appropriate,  the comparison to a small plant is not.

Both made mistakes but you libs think its OK for obama to screw up because Bush screwed up.   moral equivalency is a cop out to cover for the massive failure that has been in the white house for the last 5 years.


----------



## Synthaholic (Mar 10, 2014)

IlarMeilyr said:


> hangover said:
> 
> 
> > What goes around comes around. One bully deserves another. Putin is serving notice that the U.S. is not the only super power bully. Sure looks like Raygun didn't win the cold war after all.
> ...



Yeah, he liberated the fuck out of them!  He liberated them to death!


----------



## IlarMeilyr (Mar 10, 2014)

Contumacious said:


> IlarMeilyr said:
> 
> 
> > First of all, W did not invade Iraq.  The United States liberated Iraq from the scumbag mass murdering cock-bite, Saddam Hussein.
> ...



You answered your own "question."  We did not subjugate nor did we attempt to occupy Iraq (except for the period of time needed to oust Saddam and keep the peace -- as much as we could -- in the period that followed).  We do not own Iraq.  We do not control Iraq.  Nor did we seek those things.  We did not "invade" the country as that term is normally understood.  I mean, heck.  We invaded "France," too at the time of D-Day.  But that also wasn't to subjugate the people or occupy the left fucking bank.

The people of Iraq were Iraqis.  The People of the Ukraine are and were UKRAINIAN.  The Ukraine might have a large percentage of Russian supporters, but that doesn't change one word of what I posted.  It is not the place of the leader of RUSSIA to tell the people of Ukraine that they cannot change their own government.


----------



## Redfish (Mar 10, 2014)

IlarMeilyr said:


> Synthaholic said:
> 
> 
> > R.C. Christian said:
> ...



We have none.  It has no effect on the US if Crimea or all of Ukraine goes back to Russia.   NONE.   Let Putin have it,  then he has to feed them.


----------



## Redfish (Mar 10, 2014)

the leftards in this thread are under the fantasy that conservatives want war with Russia.   That could not be farther from the truth.


----------



## IlarMeilyr (Mar 10, 2014)

Synthaholic said:


> IlarMeilyr said:
> 
> 
> > hangover said:
> ...



Nonsense.

Try to be coherent and factually accurate someday for a fully refreshing change of pace.


----------



## Redfish (Mar 10, 2014)

Synthaholic said:


> IlarMeilyr said:
> 
> 
> > hangover said:
> ...



a cruise missile on Saddam's head would have been more effective and much cheaper.

But lets not forget---------both parties authorized and funded that fiasco.   They all have blood on their hands.


----------



## Synthaholic (Mar 10, 2014)

Redfish said:


> the leftards in this thread are under the fantasy that conservatives what war with Russia.   That could not be farther from the truth.




Then what is Senator Huckleberry J. Closetcase (REP-SC) talking about when he says that Putin is making Obama look weak?


----------



## Contumacious (Mar 10, 2014)

IlarMeilyr said:


> Contumacious said:
> 
> 
> > IlarMeilyr said:
> ...



Unfucking believable , in Syria the US support the AlQaeda controlled opposition and Ukraine the US supports the neo-nazis.

Who would have thunketh?!?!?!?
*
Is the US backing neo-Nazis in Ukraine?
*
John McCain and other State Department members have troubling ties to the ultra-nationalist Svoboda party VIDEO

.


----------



## Redfish (Mar 10, 2014)

Synthaholic said:


> Redfish said:
> 
> 
> > the leftards in this thread are under the fantasy that conservatives what war with Russia.   That could not be farther from the truth.
> ...



Putin is making obama look weak.  It has nothing to do with crimea.   In every international incident or forum Putin has looked like a leader and obama has looked like a pussey.  

Putin may be a KGB thug, but he is leading his country and making progress  while our community organizer is failing, destroying our economy, and making us the laughing stock of the world.


----------



## bendog (Mar 10, 2014)

Kevin_Kennedy said:


> bendog said:
> 
> 
> > Kevin_Kennedy said:
> ...



true, the response was to 'what is out interest in the crimea or Ukraine."

And, putin is using the threat of force to influence politics in the Ukraine.

I just find it more than hair splitting.  the issue is what is the distinction, if any, between W's neocon use of force and threat  than Putins use of force and threat.


----------



## Iceweasel (Mar 10, 2014)

IlarMeilyr said:


> ^ that is massively illogical, baseless and pretty fucking dumb.
> 
> First of all, W did not invade Iraq.  The United States liberated Iraq from the scumbag mass murdering cock-bite, Saddam Hussein.
> 
> ...


Good post. Regardless of how one feels about Iraq, we went in to liberate it and leave. It was up to them to take advantage of it. 

Russia is annexing Crimea, part of Ukraine. It isn't the same thing. The Bush hatred still blinds the left.


----------



## Contumacious (Mar 10, 2014)

Iceweasel said:


> IlarMeilyr said:
> 
> 
> > ^ that is massively illogical, baseless and pretty fucking dumb.
> ...



Shut the fuck up.

Under Saddam women could drive and they had more freedoms that under the radical Islamists -  shiite controlled - Iraq.

So Iraq was not "liberated" , it regressed.

The ONLY thing that was liberated were the gazillion dollars that were handed over to the war profiteers and the military industrial complex.

.

.


----------



## BlindBoo (Mar 10, 2014)

Redfish said:


> BlindBoo said:
> 
> 
> > Redfish said:
> ...



  Say no more, say no more......I understand completely.


----------



## bendog (Mar 10, 2014)

Contumacious said:


> Iceweasel said:
> 
> 
> > IlarMeilyr said:
> ...



Not all who say W had good intentions still parrot the line that he didn't fail miserably.


----------



## The Rabbi (Mar 10, 2014)

It's like Obama, the smartest president, is powerless against Bush's past policies, our dumbest president.
Some people actually believe this.  Which explains why Obama's approval rating is above 5%


----------



## Iceweasel (Mar 10, 2014)

Contumacious said:


> Shut the fuck up.
> 
> Under Saddam women could drive and they had more freedoms that under the radical Islamists -  shiite controlled - Iraq.
> 
> ...


Like I said, it was up to them. Saddam was starving people and building the military and castles. And torturing many of his own citizens. A wild hair the world didn't need. That said, it could have been handled by the UN without violence if they were serious.


----------



## BlindBoo (Mar 10, 2014)

Contumacious said:


> Iceweasel said:
> 
> 
> > IlarMeilyr said:
> ...



Now, now, the Iraqi oil fields have been liberated.


----------



## Contumacious (Mar 10, 2014)

Iceweasel said:


> Contumacious said:
> 
> 
> > Shut the fuck up.
> ...



Again, shut the fuck up.

Provide LINKS to your assertions.

Saddam had many women in those castles, why the fuck would he want to start a fight with the US,  if tearing a new hymen every day was FAR more pleasurable.

.


----------



## The Rabbi (Mar 10, 2014)

Contumacious said:


> Iceweasel said:
> 
> 
> > Contumacious said:
> ...



Yeah, Saddam and his sons were stand up guys. Iraq was the Switzerland of the Middle East until Bush invaded because Saddam gave his dad the finger.

Fuck you, you ignorant piece of shit.


----------



## Contumacious (Mar 10, 2014)

The Rabbi said:


> Contumacious said:
> 
> 
> > Iceweasel said:
> ...




Yo fucktard, it was up to the Iraqis to remove him . 

Of course he was a tyrant but it shouldn't have been up to the US to select his replacement. Specially when the Sunni vs Shiite civil war had been going on for a thousand years.

.

.


----------



## Iceweasel (Mar 10, 2014)

Contumacious said:


> Again, shut the fuck up.
> 
> Provide LINKS to your assertions.
> 
> Saddam had many women in those castles, why the fuck would he want to start a fight with the US,  if tearing a new hymen every day was FAR more pleasurable.


Sadaam had women in the castles? LOL. He and his sons did whatever they wanted. "Well rape you and your daughters but hey, you can drive to the doctor's office".

I said it was up to the country, you need a link for that? You provide one that says they're in worse shape.


----------



## Kevin_Kennedy (Mar 10, 2014)

bendog said:


> Kevin_Kennedy said:
> 
> 
> > bendog said:
> ...



As I said before, it's a terrible analogy. There is no comparison between Bush and Iraq and Putin and Crimea no matter how you look at it.


----------



## Contumacious (Mar 10, 2014)

Iceweasel said:


> Contumacious said:
> 
> 
> > Again, shut the fuck up.
> ...




Yep. At the *Perfume Palace.*





> I said it was up to the country, you need a link for that? You provide one that says they're in worse shape.



*The Iraqi People Are Worse Off*

.


----------



## hangover (Mar 10, 2014)

Quantum Windbag said:


> Synthaholic said:
> 
> 
> > We have no national security interests in Crimea or Ukraine.  So why are the wingnuts whining about us not doing anything?
> ...



A wingnut is a moron that uses the word WHINGING. Nice one moron.



> blackhawk
> Would this be the same Iraq invasion many Democrats voted for?


Cons did a nice con job on not only the dems, but the whole world. That's why the U.S. has no credibility any more. Just because you fooled the dems, doesn't justify the invasion. And it doesn't justify the $5 trillion the cons wasted on it. Cons "whine" about spending unless their the ones wasting it on their intervention policies.

And it was Ronnie Raygun that supplied the chemical weapons to Saddam. Cons are slime balls.


----------



## bianco (Mar 10, 2014)

Iceweasel said:


> Contumacious said:
> 
> 
> > Shut the fuck up.
> ...



Exactly.
No need for Michelle Witmer and all the other young American etc military personnel to die and be maimed for life.


----------



## bianco (Mar 10, 2014)

Invasions of Afghanistan and Iraq...both crazy IMO.
Were always gonna end badly.

After the 9/11 attacks, as NYC was burning and in ruin, Americans were calling for revenge...cars and trucks in America were seen on my tv with signs on them reading;

*NUKE EM *

Someone was gonna get bombed, and hanged.
Washington was sick and tired of Saddam and his posturing/threats...and having to cart their military across the world every time he taunted them.

Toby sang a song;

[ame]https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=VyH3NBrqNu0 [/ame]


Australian Prime Minister John Howard invoked the ANZUS Alliance/Treaty and our warships [glorified troop carriers, that must be changed] sailed for the Gulf, and planes left carrying troops.
60% of the population didn't agree with the invasions, but saw that we needed to support America as it had been attacked.

As the ships and plane left, and for years afterwards, the no 1 radio station played Toby's song every other day and often.
It was heard booming out of homes, cars, offices etc.

George W addressed the Australian parliament;


http://australianpolitics.com/2003/10/23/president-bush-addresses-australian-paliament.html 

President Bush Addresses Australian Parliament; Greens Ejected
Oct 23, 2003 
United States President George W. Bush has addressed the Australian Parliament during his visit to Canberra.

The speech was punctuated by interjections from Greens senators Bob Brown and Kerry Nettle.

&#9632;Listen to President Bush&#8217;s Address: 



&#9632;Listen to Opposition Leader Simon Crean&#8217;s Speech of Welcome to Bush 



&#9632;Text and Audio of Prime Minister John Howard&#8217;s Speech of Welcome to Bush


Transcript of President Bush&#8217;s address to the Australian Parliament.

Governor General Michael Jeffery, Prime Minister John Howard, Speaker of the House, Leader of the Senate, Leader of the Opposition Simon Crean, distinguished members of the House and the Senate, Premiers, Members of the Diplomatic Corps, ladies and gentlemen: Laura and I are honored to be in the Commonwealth of Australia. I want to thank the Prime Minister for his invitation. I want to thank the Members and Senators for convening this session of the Parliament. And I want to thank the people of Australia for a gracious welcome. 

Five months ago, your Prime Minister was a distinguished visitor of ours in Crawford, Texas, at our ranch. You might remember that I called him a &#8220;man of steel.&#8221; That&#8217;s Texan for &#8220;fair dinkum.&#8221; Prime Minister John Howard is a leader of exceptional courage, who exemplifies the finest qualities of one of the world&#8217;s greatest democracies. (Hear, hear.) I&#8217;m proud to call him friend.

Americans know Australia as a land of independent and enterprising and good-hearted people. We see something familiar here, something we like. Australians are fair-minded and tolerant and easy-going. Yet in times of trouble and danger, Australians are the first to step forward, to accept the hard duties, and to fight bravely until the fighting is done.

In a hundred years of experience, American soldiers have come to know the courage and good fellowship of the diggers at their side. We fought together in the Battle of Hamel, together in the Coral Sea, together in New Guinea, on the Korean Peninsula, in Vietnam. And in the war on terror, once again we&#8217;re at each other&#8217;s side. 

In this war, the Australia and American people have witnessed the methods of the enemy. We saw the scope of their hatred on September the 11, 2001. We saw the depth of their cruelty on October the 12, 2002. We saw destruction and grief &#8212; and we saw our duty. As free nations in peril, we must fight this enemy with all our strength. 

No country can live peacefully in a world that the terrorists would make for us. And no people are immune from the sudden violence that can come to an office building, or an airplane, or a night club, or a city bus. Your nation and mine have known the shock and felt the sorrow, and laid the dead to rest. And we refuse to live our lives at the mercy of murderers.

etc


----------



## Contumacious (Mar 10, 2014)

bianco said:


> Washington was sick and tired of Saddam and his posturing/threats...and having to cart their military across the world every time he taunted them.





.


----------



## Iceweasel (Mar 10, 2014)

Contumacious said:


> *The Iraqi People Are Worse Off*


Lew Rockwell? That's your source?


----------



## Quantum Windbag (Mar 10, 2014)

Synthaholic said:


> Lonestar_logic said:
> 
> 
> > Synthaholic said:
> ...



If you cherry pick cherry picking and you can prove anything.


----------



## Quantum Windbag (Mar 10, 2014)

IlarMeilyr said:


> Synthaholic said:
> 
> 
> > R.C. Christian said:
> ...



My guess Obama is aware of things we aren't, which is why he is concerned. At least that is what all the Obamabots tell me whenever I ask questions like that.


----------



## Contumacious (Mar 10, 2014)

Iceweasel said:


> Contumacious said:
> 
> 
> > *The Iraqi People Are Worse Off*
> ...



Tell me what facts were exposed there which in your opinion are not unsupported by the facts.

BTW, Lewrockwell is the BEST source...


----------



## Kevin_Kennedy (Mar 10, 2014)

Iceweasel said:


> Contumacious said:
> 
> 
> > *The Iraqi People Are Worse Off*
> ...



Actually it's a speech from the House of Representatives that was merely reprinted by Lew Rockwell. Perhaps you could actually try to address it, however, rather than simply dismiss it. If you prefer, you can read it here.

http://www.gpo.gov/fdsys/pkg/CREC-2005-04-06/html/CREC-2005-04-06-pt1-PgH1835.htm#page=3


----------



## GISMYS (Mar 10, 2014)

Iraq is a free country not made a part of usa!!   DUH!!!


----------



## The Rabbi (Mar 10, 2014)

Iceweasel said:


> Contumacious said:
> 
> 
> > *The Iraqi People Are Worse Off*
> ...



That's his source for grooming tips as well. Brown shirts and stormtrooper boots.


----------



## The Rabbi (Mar 10, 2014)

Kevin_Kennedy said:


> Iceweasel said:
> 
> 
> > Contumacious said:
> ...



It was a speech by Ron Paul, the most failed politician in American history.  Ron Paul?  No.  RuPaul?  Yes.


----------



## GISMYS (Mar 10, 2014)

Too bad you did not get to spend a few weeks in one of Saddam's rape torture rooms and get to dig mass graves,you might think better now!


----------



## Contumacious (Mar 10, 2014)

The Rabbi said:


> Iceweasel said:
> 
> 
> > Contumacious said:
> ...



Really?


----------



## The Rabbi (Mar 10, 2014)

Contumacious said:


> The Rabbi said:
> 
> 
> > Iceweasel said:
> ...



You're the one on the right, ja?


----------



## Contumacious (Mar 10, 2014)

The Rabbi said:


> Kevin_Kennedy said:
> 
> 
> > Iceweasel said:
> ...



WHY is it his fault that you fuckers are addicted to welfare/warfare?!?!?!?!!?

.


----------



## The Rabbi (Mar 10, 2014)

Contumacious said:


> The Rabbi said:
> 
> 
> > Kevin_Kennedy said:
> ...



No, because he spent 30 years in Congress and failed to write and pass a single bill.  He was also wrong on every foreign policy issue to come around in that time.  His record might be worse than Joe Biden's.


----------



## bianco (Mar 10, 2014)

Contumacious said:


> bianco said:
> 
> 
> > Washington was sick and tired of Saddam and his posturing/threats...and having to cart their military across the world every time he taunted them.
> ...



https://www.washingtoninstitute.org...-in-the-gulf-five-years-of-dual-containment1 

_But we all know it is not over. Saddam Hussein's track record is all too clear. He will continue to challenge the international community because his goals remain regional domination and revenge for past defeats. 
That is why he started two wars and tried to assassinate President Bush and the Amir of Kuwait. Thus it is imperative that vigilance and strength remain the hallmarks of our efforts to contain this regime until the time comes when Iraq fully complies with its obligations and is at peace with its neighbors.

We are all tired of Saddam's hide and seek games..... _


----------



## Contumacious (Mar 10, 2014)

The Rabbi said:


> Contumacious said:
> 
> 
> > The Rabbi said:
> ...



The ONLY bills that he needed to pass were: abolishing the IRS, the Federal Reserve Board, the "income" tax and abolishing the standing armies, (DEA, FBI, BATF.....)

And he could not adopt that legislation by himself. You ilk controls DC.

.


----------



## The Rabbi (Mar 10, 2014)

Contumacious said:


> The Rabbi said:
> 
> 
> > Contumacious said:
> ...



Because those are the only problems the Federal government has had to deal with over 30 years.  If he cannot persuade anyone else, why should we be persuaded?


----------



## TooTall (Mar 10, 2014)

Synthaholic said:


> R.C. Christian said:
> 
> 
> > Synthaholic said:
> ...



The Ukraine has the third largest nuclear stockpile in the world and it would not be in our national interest if they make them operational.  It would encourage other nations to acquire nukes, for example, Iran.


----------



## Iceweasel (Mar 11, 2014)

Kevin_Kennedy said:


> Iceweasel said:
> 
> 
> > Contumacious said:
> ...


I don't spend time on lazy shit. Throwing links out is lazy and stupid. If someone has a point to make, post the link with the best portion that makes your case. Otherwise it's just a smokescreen.

And what does a speech about TERRI SCHIAVO have to do with it?


----------



## Kevin_Kennedy (Mar 11, 2014)

Iceweasel said:


> Kevin_Kennedy said:
> 
> 
> > Iceweasel said:
> ...



So, basically, you just had no intention of reading it, and any excuse to dismiss it will do. The speech that was reprinted on Lew Rockwell is after the speech on Schiavo.


----------



## Truthmatters (Mar 11, 2014)

bedowin62 said:


> Synthaholic said:
> 
> 
> > blackhawk said:
> ...



They made the mistake of thinking Bush was going to do the right Thing for this  country.


They trusted the PRESIDENT in a time of crisis 


Bush then USED us all


----------



## Contumacious (Mar 11, 2014)

bianco said:


> Contumacious said:
> 
> 
> > bianco said:
> ...



Isn't *Bruce Riedel* the mother of all warmongers?

Isn't it a fact that he get sexually aroused at the sight of spilled blood?

.

.


----------



## Iceweasel (Mar 11, 2014)

Kevin_Kennedy said:


> So, basically, you just had no intention of reading it, and any excuse to dismiss it will do. The speech that was reprinted on Lew Rockwell is after the speech on Schiavo.


That's correct. I'm not going to spend a half hour to figure out what your point is and a political speech isn't proof of anything but a speech.


----------



## Contumacious (Mar 11, 2014)

The Rabbi said:


> Contumacious said:
> 
> 
> > The Rabbi said:
> ...



I am persuaded and so are many Americans who derive no benefits from the welfare/warfare police state.

.


----------



## Synthaholic (Mar 11, 2014)

Iceweasel said:


> IlarMeilyr said:
> 
> 
> > ^ that is massively illogical, baseless and pretty fucking dumb.
> ...




Both of you have been spouting the same talking points for so long, you actually now believe your own bullshit:

We went into Iraq because the President Of The United States told us that there was an "imminent threat" and that it was a matter of national security.

That's it.  That was the only rationale.

Only when the follow-up questions started, like _"how will the Iraqi people view this forced regime change?"_ that people like Cheney predicted flowers and candy.

Only after there were no WNDs found did they start pivoting to the "Liberation" rationale.


----------



## Synthaholic (Mar 11, 2014)

The Rabbi said:


> *It's like Obama, the smartest president, is powerless against Bush's past policies, our dumbest president.*
> Some people actually believe this.  Which explains why Obama's approval rating is above 5%



That's because the policies become ingrained.  Obama couldn't come into office in 2009 and single-handedly abolish Bush's huge bureaucracy, the Dept. of Homeland Security, could he?


----------



## Kevin_Kennedy (Mar 11, 2014)

Iceweasel said:


> Kevin_Kennedy said:
> 
> 
> > So, basically, you just had no intention of reading it, and any excuse to dismiss it will do. The speech that was reprinted on Lew Rockwell is after the speech on Schiavo.
> ...



I didn't make any point regarding the speech. Merely made the point that your dancing around responding in any substantive way is blatant and laughable. Better to simply not respond at all to posts you don't like than give a list of reasons why you won't.


----------



## Synthaholic (Mar 11, 2014)

The Rabbi said:


> Contumacious said:
> 
> 
> > Iceweasel said:
> ...



How is that our business?


----------



## Synthaholic (Mar 11, 2014)

Quantum Windbag said:


> Synthaholic said:
> 
> 
> > Lonestar_logic said:
> ...


If you could refute it you would.


----------



## Contumacious (Mar 11, 2014)

Kevin_Kennedy said:


> Iceweasel said:
> 
> 
> > Kevin_Kennedy said:
> ...



He has already stated that he doesn't believe his lying eyes.

.


----------



## Synthaholic (Mar 11, 2014)

The Rabbi said:


> Kevin_Kennedy said:
> 
> 
> > Iceweasel said:
> ...


Because getting elected to Congress 11 times is a measure of failure?

You're a dope.


----------



## Synthaholic (Mar 11, 2014)

GISMYS said:


> Too bad you did not get to spend a few weeks in one of Saddam's rape torture rooms and get to dig mass graves,you might think better now!


How is that my problem?


----------



## Synthaholic (Mar 11, 2014)

The Rabbi said:


> Contumacious said:
> 
> 
> > The Rabbi said:
> ...



I thought you wingnuts believed that the less laws and bills Congress passed, the better?




> His record might be worse than Joe Biden's.



Biden is one of the most accomplished Senators in U.S. history.  I know that burns your butt.


----------



## Indeependent (Mar 11, 2014)

Synthaholic said:


> The Rabbi said:
> 
> 
> > Contumacious said:
> ...



I'd rather have a guy like Biden who can't hide his thoughts than a deceptive weasel like most representatives.


----------



## Synthaholic (Mar 11, 2014)

TooTall said:


> Synthaholic said:
> 
> 
> > R.C. Christian said:
> ...


Ukraine doesn't have an adversarial relationship with Iran.

Perhaps the threat of Ukraine's nukes will keep Putin from doing anything stupid.  Good!


----------



## Iceweasel (Mar 11, 2014)

Synthaholic said:


> Both of you have been spouting the same talking points for so long, you actually now believe your own bullshit:
> 
> We went into Iraq because the President Of The United States told us that there was an "imminent threat" and that it was a matter of national security.
> 
> That's it.  That was the only rationale.


That's a lie. And you just accused me of bullshit? Iraq was in violation of the treaty and UN resolutions, that was the legal justification.


> Only when the follow-up questions started, like _"how will the Iraqi people view this forced regime change?"_ that people like Cheney predicted flowers and candy.
> 
> Only after there were no WNDs found did they start pivoting to the "Liberation" rationale.


More bullshit. I remember Soddomie's statue coming down, played over and over. Many did welcome the change, I saw it with my own eyes. I don't know what rock you were under.


----------



## Iceweasel (Mar 11, 2014)

Synthaholic said:


> Biden is one of the most accomplished Senators in U.S. history.  I know that burns your butt.


LOL. Thanks for the morning chuckle.


----------



## The Rabbi (Mar 11, 2014)

Iceweasel said:


> Synthaholic said:
> 
> 
> > Both of you have been spouting the same talking points for so long, you actually now believe your own bullshit:
> ...



And they have been repeating the same lies for a decade.  And every time we point out the truth, it is like it didnt happen.  Like we didnt post what was clearly true.  They cannot process anything that contradicts their version of reality.  That's why liberalism is a mental disease.


----------



## Contumacious (Mar 11, 2014)

Truthmatters said:


> bedowin62 said:
> 
> 
> > Synthaholic said:
> ...



The mistake that you consistently make is believing that ANY president - Republican or Democrat - is doing the right thing for the country.

.


----------



## Synthaholic (Mar 11, 2014)

Iceweasel said:


> More bullshit. *I remember Soddomie's statue coming down, played over and over. Many did welcome the change, I saw it with my own eyes. I don't know what rock you were under.*



That was after we invaded, dumbass!


----------



## bedowin62 (Mar 11, 2014)

Synthaholic said:


> Iceweasel said:
> 
> 
> > Only after there were no WNDs found did they start pivoting to the "Liberation" rationale.
> ...


[/quote]

That was after we invaded, dumbass![/QUOTE]



the dumbass is you; bush laid out a case right BEFORE sending in troops; and liberating Iraq from the tyrant Saddam was one of the reasons

libs are losers who lie to themselves


----------



## Synthaholic (Mar 11, 2014)

Iceweasel said:


> Synthaholic said:
> 
> 
> > Biden is one of the most accomplished Senators in U.S. history.  I know that burns your butt.
> ...


You're stupid.  Biden was Chairman of the Senate Judiciary from 89-95, and he was Chairman of the Senate Foreign relations variously between 98-09.  He was a Senator from 73-09.  He has authored or been involved in many of our most important legislation in the past 40 years.


----------



## Synthaholic (Mar 11, 2014)

bedowin62 said:


> the dumbass is you; bush laid out a case right BEFORE sending in troops; and liberating Iraq from the tyrant Saddam was one of the reasons
> 
> libs are losers who lie to themselves


The statue came down AFTER we invaded.  So why are you trying to tell me it was before?


----------



## Iceweasel (Mar 11, 2014)

Synthaholic said:


> Iceweasel said:
> 
> 
> > More bullshit. *I remember Soddomie's statue coming down, played over and over. Many did welcome the change, I saw it with my own eyes. I don't know what rock you were under.*
> ...


Well no joke. I think Saddam would have thrown a hissy fit. My point was ... (read sloooowwwwly) that. many. did. welcome. us. I recall hearing about regime change long before the war, many thought so after the first invasion. Again, I don't know where you were but clearly you were not paying attention. Maybe still in grade school?


----------



## bedowin62 (Mar 11, 2014)

Synthaholic said:


> bedowin62 said:
> 
> 
> > the dumbass is you; bush laid out a case right BEFORE sending in troops; and liberating Iraq from the tyrant Saddam was one of the reasons
> ...



In order to comply with the 2002 Authorization for Use of Military Force Against Iraq Resolution by Congress, on March 18, 2003, President Bush certified to Congress that he had "determined that: (1) reliance by the United States on further diplomatic and other peaceful means alone will neither (A) adequately protect the national security of the United States against the continuing threat posed by Iraq nor (B) likely lead to enforcement of all relevant United Nations Security Council resolutions regarding Iraq; and (2) acting pursuant to the Constitution and Public Law 107-243 is consistent with the United States and other countries continuing to take the necessary actions against international terrorists and terrorist organizations, including those nations, organizations, or persons who planned, authorized, committed, or aided the terrorist attacks that occurred on September 11, 2001."[14]




your point is that notion we were there for the  liberation or Iraq came AFTER we invaded. that is a lie.


----------



## Synthaholic (Mar 11, 2014)

Iceweasel said:


> Synthaholic said:
> 
> 
> > Iceweasel said:
> ...




They weren't welcoming us!  They were tearing down a statue of Sunni Saddam, in a Shiite neighborhood.

And WE orchestrated it!

The Truth About Iconic 2003 Saddam Statue-Toppling - The Wire

Toppling the statue of Saddam Hussein in Iraq : The New Yorker

Saddam Statue Scene Staged


Like I said: you've been spouting your bullshit talking points for so long you actually believe it!


----------



## Synthaholic (Mar 11, 2014)

bedowin62 said:


> Synthaholic said:
> 
> 
> > bedowin62 said:
> ...


There is nothing in your quoted portion that mentions liberation.

FAIL!!


----------



## bedowin62 (Mar 11, 2014)

Synthaholic said:


> Iceweasel said:
> 
> 
> > Synthaholic said:
> ...



you're simply a mindless idiot. Iraqi Shiites dont and didnt need prompting to tear down a staatue of Sunni Saddam; they were mass murdered and tortured by him for decades.. you dont know what the eff you're talking about; so typical of your ilk


----------



## The Rabbi (Mar 11, 2014)

Synthaholic said:


> bedowin62 said:
> 
> 
> > the dumbass is you; bush laid out a case right BEFORE sending in troops; and liberating Iraq from the tyrant Saddam was one of the reasons
> ...



Did you think it was going to come down before we invaded, while Saddam was still in power?
You are one mindless blob.


----------



## Iceweasel (Mar 11, 2014)

Synthaholic said:


> Iceweasel said:
> 
> 
> > Synthaholic said:
> ...


He's also an idiot and has proved it many times. Thanks again.


----------



## Iceweasel (Mar 11, 2014)

Synthaholic said:


> They weren't welcoming us!  They were tearing down a statue of Sunni Saddam, in a Shiite neighborhood.
> 
> And WE orchestrated it!


So they were happy he was gone. Point proven.

As far as your links, post the best portion of the evidence since I'm not your babysitter.


----------



## IlarMeilyr (Mar 11, 2014)

Given the Russian Federation violation of a treaty signed by the US (Bubba Clinton), the Russian Federation, Great Britain and Ukraine in 1994, is there some obligation on the part of the United States and Great Britain to ACT now as against Russia?

1994 Treaty - Will the USA, UK have to Come to the Aid of Ukraine - The SUA Blog | Stand Up America US | The SUA Blog | Stand Up America US

Here is a copy of the "treaty" itself (not really a treaty, technically, but good enough):



> Memorandum on Security Assurances in connection with Ukraine's accession to the Treaty on the Non-Proliferation of Nuclear Weapons
> 
> 
> Budapest, 5 December 1994
> ...



Ukraine. Memorandum on Security Assurances - Wikisource, the free online library


----------



## Contumacious (Mar 11, 2014)

IlarMeilyr said:


> Given the Russian Federation violation of a treaty signed by the US (Bubba Clinton), the Russian Federation, Great Britain and Ukraine in 1994, is there some obligation on the part of the United States and Great Britain to ACT now as against Russia?



NONE.

"That doesnt mean the U.S. and the U.K. are committed to defend Ukraine if Russia invades, said *Christopher Swift*, a lawyer and adjunct professor of national security studies at Georgetown Universitys School of Foreign Service in Washington. "

There is nothing in the Budapest Memorandum that automatically triggers a collective defense obligation by an outside power in the event that someone invades Ukrainian territory or subverts its sovereignty, Swift said in an e-mail. This is not like the network of cascading defense commitments that got us into the First World War. 

Furthermore

Meeting with reporters yesterday, Putin said that the commitments no longer apply because *a coup in Kiev has resulted in a new state with which we have signed no binding agreements. *He said he reserved the right to use military action in southeastern Ukraine to protect ethnic Russians."

.


----------



## Synthaholic (Mar 11, 2014)

bedowin62 said:


> Synthaholic said:
> 
> 
> > Iceweasel said:
> ...




Once more for the Right-Wing Retards:

*SADDAM'S STATUE-TOPPLING WAS STAGED!!!*


----------



## Synthaholic (Mar 11, 2014)

The Rabbi said:


> Synthaholic said:
> 
> 
> > bedowin62 said:
> ...



Then why is that dumbass bedowin62 using the statue-toppling as proof we should invade?


----------



## Synthaholic (Mar 11, 2014)

Iceweasel said:


> Synthaholic said:
> 
> 
> > They weren't welcoming us!  They were tearing down a statue of Sunni Saddam, in a Shiite neighborhood.
> ...


Whether you remain ignorant or not is your choice.  One of the link titles is Saddam Statue Scene Staged

If you are interested in the truth, you'll click the link.  If not, you won't.


----------



## Synthaholic (Mar 11, 2014)

IlarMeilyr said:


> Given the Russian Federation violation of a treaty signed by the US (Bubba Clinton), the Russian Federation, Great Britain and Ukraine in 1994, is there some obligation on the part of the United States and Great Britain to ACT now as against Russia?
> 
> 1994 Treaty - Will the USA, UK have to Come to the Aid of Ukraine - The SUA Blog | Stand Up America US | The SUA Blog | Stand Up America US



I think there is, but what sanctions will actually affect Russia?  Won't Putin just use his state-controlled media to portray the world against Mother Russia?  I don't think that direct confrontation works with this guy.

Also, Europe sanctioning Russia is just Europe sanctioning itself, since Putin would surely cut fuel supplies to the continent.

The best way to influence Putin while allowing him to save face (important for him) is to put pressure on business interests in Russia.  Corporations must start putting Russian contracts on hold, development projects on hold.

Also start putting pressure on the oligarchs, their businesses with the West, and their fortunes.


----------



## The Rabbi (Mar 11, 2014)

Synthaholic said:


> The Rabbi said:
> 
> 
> > Synthaholic said:
> ...



You're not very bright, are you?


----------



## Synthaholic (Mar 11, 2014)

The Rabbi said:


> Synthaholic said:
> 
> 
> > The Rabbi said:
> ...


Brighter than you, although I know that's a low bar.


----------



## The Rabbi (Mar 11, 2014)

Synthaholic said:


> The Rabbi said:
> 
> 
> > Synthaholic said:
> ...



No, I understood wht his post was about. You didnt.


----------



## Iceweasel (Mar 12, 2014)

Synthaholic said:


> If you are interested in the truth, you'll click the link.  If not, you won't.


As far as your links, post the best portion of the evidence since I'm not your babysitter.


----------



## dr.d (Mar 12, 2014)

Regarding any notion about "welcoming us" after we invaded Iraq...that only lives in Cheny's self serving fantasy....Would we welcome a nation that killed over 100,000 of our citizens and reduced our infrastructure to rubble...to get at our natural resources...? Please!
The Iraq invasion not only cost us much wasted money and lives...but any good will we may have had in that region...


Sent from my iPhone using USMessageBoard.com


----------



## dr.d (Mar 12, 2014)

...and nothing justifies Putin's invasion...


Sent from my iPhone using USMessageBoard.com


----------



## IlarMeilyr (Mar 12, 2014)

dr.d said:


> Regarding any notion about "welcoming us" after we invaded Iraq...that only lives in Cheny's self serving fantasy....Would we welcome a nation that killed over 100,000 of our citizens and reduced our infrastructure to rubble...to get at our natural resources...? Please!
> The Iraq invasion not only cost us much wasted money and lives...but any good will we may have had in that region...
> 
> 
> Sent from my iPhone using USMessageBoard.com




Oh get a handle on reality.

The fraudulent figure of over 100,000 is baseless.  That's for starters.

Then, of course, a goodly number of the deaths that did occur were not caused by the US or her allies.

The infrastructure of Iraq was never reduced to rubble, although Saddam did do a number on Iraqi oil fields.

We WERE indeed welcomed, although not as roundly and soundly as Vice President Cheney apparently expected.

Our "invasion [sic]" wasn't so much an "invasion" as it was a liberation.  Minor technical difference.  The D-Day Invasion was an "invasion" too, I guess we can say,  but not really the kind of invasion your use of the word seeks to suggest.

And there's not even a hint of support for the bogus claim that the "invasion" was to take natural resources.  Since, you know, we *didn't* take any resources.  Those "fact" things really perturb your universe, evidently.

And if we lost some measure of good will, perhaps that's because to do what we were doing there, we also had the liberal scumbag Democratics in THIS country busy undermining the job.  Accordingly, our house divided did stuff in messy half-measures effectively screwing up the good we would otherwise have succeeded more fully in accomplishing.

By the way, when was the last time Saddam was able to use a "rape room" against his own people?


----------



## Synthaholic (Mar 12, 2014)

Iceweasel said:


> Synthaholic said:
> 
> 
> > If you are interested in the truth, you'll click the link.  If not, you won't.
> ...


You seem to be under the impression that I give a shit whether you click any links or remain an ignorant wingnut.

I don't.


----------



## Synthaholic (Mar 12, 2014)

IlarMeilyr said:


> dr.d said:
> 
> 
> > Regarding any notion about "welcoming us" after we invaded Iraq...that only lives in Cheny's self serving fantasy....Would we welcome a nation that killed over 100,000 of our citizens and reduced our infrastructure to rubble...to get at our natural resources...? Please!
> ...



The figure is much higher than 100,000.

*Half-Million Iraqis Died in the War, New Study Says*

There were many links, but you like to shoot the messenger, so I picked National Geographic.

You are welcome to put up reputable links that show it was less than 100,000. 

But you won't.


----------



## Iceweasel (Mar 12, 2014)

Synthaholic said:


> Iceweasel said:
> 
> 
> > Synthaholic said:
> ...


Translation = I would have to read them for myself!


----------



## Iceweasel (Mar 12, 2014)

Synthaholic said:


> The figure is much higher than 100,000.
> 
> *Half-Million Iraqis Died in the War, New Study Says*
> 
> ...


From your link:
"War and occupation directly and indirectly claimed the lives of about a half-million Iraqis from 2003 to 2011, according to a groundbreaking survey of 1,960 Iraqi households."

How does that work?


----------



## Contumacious (Mar 12, 2014)

Iceweasel said:


> Synthaholic said:
> 
> 
> > The figure is much higher than 100,000.
> ...



*[ame="http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=RM0uvgHKZe8"]CBS 60 Minutes 1/2 Million Children died....but it was worthy[/ame]*

.


----------



## Iceweasel (Mar 12, 2014)

Contumacious said:


> Iceweasel said:
> 
> 
> > How does that work?
> ...


Is she the one that phoned the 1,960 households? And they lost a half million children? They sure did have big families. Do y'all ever think about this stuff?


----------



## Contumacious (Mar 12, 2014)

Iceweasel said:


> Contumacious said:
> 
> 
> > Iceweasel said:
> ...



I believe that CBS 60 Minutes and the US Ambassador to the UN just made it up.

But you are on record as professing not to let the facts get in the way of your prejudices.

.


----------



## dr.d (Mar 12, 2014)

U offer absolutely no evidence to refute the reality that we "liberated" over 100,000 innocent Iraqis from their lives...based on false premises that have been repeatedly debunked. Iraq DID NOT have nukes or WMD;  Saddam was a tin horn dictator that never had the intent or ability to attack us...there was never any connection to 9-11....The Bush/Cheny administration simply used that tragedy to foment an attack on an oil rich nation to try to gain control of it's oil...and screwed that up as well as draining our own treasure and soldiers' lives. Ur just having trouble facing the truth...and those who don't learn from history r doomed to repeat it.


Sent from my iPhone using USMessageBoard.com


----------



## Iceweasel (Mar 13, 2014)

Contumacious said:


> I believe that CBS 60 Minutes and the US Ambassador to the UN just made it up.
> 
> But you are on record as professing not to let the facts get in the way of your prejudices.


You just reaffirmed my skepticism. You're on record as being a dim bulb.


----------

