Anyone remember the full page ad in the NYT advocating AGAINST invading Iraq?

[Plasmaball]

^ Here's Iraq after we removed Saddam

^Here's Iraq after Obama switch sides to support Islamic Jihad

Seriously frank...give it up already...for once can you put away your troll?

 

[KNB]

That's because we have a POTUS, Obama, who supports Jihad and not a real US President.

Reagan armed terrorists in Iraq, Iran, and Afghanistan. Why can't you people face reality?

Your heroes are shit. Reagan is burning in Hell right now.

Why don't you just shut the fuck up about Reagan? Do you live in some bizarro time warp or what?

Every thread about radical Islamists for you and other idiots is never in the here and now. No you have to go back decades.

Moron. If we want to talk radical Islamists and how they were influenced we could go back to the freaking Koran in every thread.

I know. Lets blame ISIS and Levant on the Crusades. Yeah yeah that's the ticket.

Get real. Right now. Or every decent thread that turns into a Reagan or Bush bashing thread I'm going to request the Mods move it to HISTORY.

Yes, dinglefuck. I live in a weird time-warp called 'recent history'. It's a strange place where one thing has an effect on another. In other words, because of one thing, another thing happens. For example, when Reagan armed the modern Jihad and made terrorism stronger across the Middle East, this led to those terrorists passing on their ideology and guerrilla training to younger generations of terrorists, and this is what caused the terrorist attacks of 9/11/01.

"Cause and effect". Because Bush lied to invade and torture Iraq, the effect is that Iraq is now a piecemeal clusterfuck even if Obama put 400k soldiers in there.

 

[tinydancer]

I'll bet Al Qaeda is using Obama in their recruiting posters.

Join Jihad, the Prophet Obama guides us! We have All the land from Aleppo to Baghdad and $15B in the best US Equipment. Praise be to Obama! Praise be his Holy Name!

Hahaha. You're as crazy as me. I was thinking of the potential of radical Islamist entrepreneurship when I put up these ideas in another thread.

Become a burqa designer. Mega bucks baby. Better yet become a Obama/Bush flammable effigy maker.

And no good entrepreneur in a radical hard line Islamist country could be without this.

The guaranteed quick light flammable American flag baby! Guaranteed to light quickly for the cameras but burn slow enough to get in at least ten Death to America chants while Al Jazeera films.

 

[KNB]

Bush lied to invade Iraq.

 

[tinydancer]

Reagan armed terrorists in Iraq, Iran, and Afghanistan. Why can't you people face reality?

Your heroes are shit. Reagan is burning in Hell right now.

Why don't you just shut the fuck up about Reagan? Do you live in some bizarro time warp or what?

Every thread about radical Islamists for you and other idiots is never in the here and now. No you have to go back decades.

Moron. If we want to talk radical Islamists and how they were influenced we could go back to the freaking Koran in every thread.

I know. Lets blame ISIS and Levant on the Crusades. Yeah yeah that's the ticket.

Get real. Right now. Or every decent thread that turns into a Reagan or Bush bashing thread I'm going to request the Mods move it to HISTORY.

Yes, dinglefuck. I live in a weird time-warp called 'recent history'. It's a strange place where one thing has an effect on another. In other words, because of one thing, another thing happens. For example, when Reagan armed the modern Jihad and made terrorism stronger across the Middle East, this led to those terrorists passing on their ideology and guerrilla training to younger generations of terrorists, and this is what caused the terrorist attacks of 9/11/01.

"Cause and effect". Because Bush lied to invade and torture Iraq, the effect is that Iraq is now a piecemeal clusterfuck even if Obama put 400k soldiers in there.

So in every thread that deals with what is happening in the here and now this is how the thread should go according to you.

Blame Obama.

Blame GW.

Blame Clinton.

Blame GH

Blame Reagan.

Blame Carter.

Skipping Ford.

Blame LBJ.

Blame Kennedy.

And so on and so on and so on.

It's freaking outrageously stupid! We're on a fabulous message board with awesome potential for good conversation but to keep repeating the same shit over and over and over denigrates the debate.

And makes it boring as hell.

 

[Dot Com]

you already played that card Frank57. Malaki is our guy" is a FAIL strategy. "Keeping a lid on it", at GREAT cost in blood & treasure, due to our backing the aforementioned guy, is NOT a winning occupation strategy as well.

Care to try again?

Obama threw it all away when he switched side to support the Jihadists

you people and your rw hyperbole. How many decades of occupation do repub chickenhawks, like Cheney, need to win a war of choice? AND who is going to pay for it?

Too bad Condi didn't have the spine to stand up to Dick or at least resign instead of signing onto the biggest foreign policy disaster in a generation.

Frank57 never answered my above question. QUELLE SURPRISE..... NOT

Iraq was standing. It might have been wobbly, but it was on the way when Bush left office.

The disaster came when obama took Iraq in a new direction. The current disaster in Iraq occurred because obama armed ISIS in Syria. Had that not happened, Assad would have put down that rebellion in days and there would never have been an ISIS.

if a smoldering powderkeg, due to Malaki alienating all non-Shiia in the country = "standing", then yes Stop w/ the rw cray cray talk hackgrl [MENTION=33658]Katzndogz[/MENTION]

 

[KNB]

Why don't you just shut the fuck up about Reagan? Do you live in some bizarro time warp or what?

Every thread about radical Islamists for you and other idiots is never in the here and now. No you have to go back decades.

Moron. If we want to talk radical Islamists and how they were influenced we could go back to the freaking Koran in every thread.

I know. Lets blame ISIS and Levant on the Crusades. Yeah yeah that's the ticket.

Get real. Right now. Or every decent thread that turns into a Reagan or Bush bashing thread I'm going to request the Mods move it to HISTORY.

Yes, dinglefuck. I live in a weird time-warp called 'recent history'. It's a strange place where one thing has an effect on another. In other words, because of one thing, another thing happens. For example, when Reagan armed the modern Jihad and made terrorism stronger across the Middle East, this led to those terrorists passing on their ideology and guerrilla training to younger generations of terrorists, and this is what caused the terrorist attacks of 9/11/01.

"Cause and effect". Because Bush lied to invade and torture Iraq, the effect is that Iraq is now a piecemeal clusterfuck even if Obama put 400k soldiers in there.

So in every thread that deals with what is happening in the here and now this is how the thread should go according to you.

Blame Obama.

Blame GW.

Blame Clinton.

Blame GH

Blame Reagan.

Blame Carter.

Skipping Ford.

Blame LBJ.

Blame Kennedy.

And so on and so on and so on.

It's freaking outrageously stupid! We're on a fabulous message board with awesome potential for good conversation but to keep repeating the same shit over and over and over denigrates the debate.

And makes it boring as hell.

The only person on your list that I can give a possible pass to would be Kennedy because I have read that he said that he would legalize Cannabis again upon his reelection. He only gets a possible pass if that were true, which cannot be proven since he had his head blown off.

Every President since then are the ones "repeating the same shit over and over and over".

When was the first time in your life that you saw this?:

[ame=http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Ngc0_mQ5tjE]Hemp For Victory (1942) U.S. Department of Agriculture - YouTube[/ame]

Right here on this fabulous message board, right? Never in public school history class, never in the "liberal" media, never before in your entire life. Why? This is a very important detail in America's victory during World War II, hence the title of the film. Why were We the People never told about this?

Nixon started the war on drugs thirty years after "Marihuana" was legalized to defend American freedom, and every President, both Democratic and Republican, have continued to lie to the American people about "Marihuana".

As for terrorism, "cause and effect" is what history is all about. Everything is connected because we all live on the same planet. Osama bin Laden joined the jihad when the US was creating the jihad. Would the CIA have been so quick to create the jihad if they knew or cared that the jihad thinks that we're all infidels and want to kill us, too?

Maybe Reagan wasn't a hero after all.

 

[Dot Com]

So the ad says we would have to have troops in Iraq for many years to create a stable society. Then why the hell didn't we? Why didnt Obama listen to those wise people and keep troops there? Why did he run like hell the first chance he got? Obama sacrificed Iraq on the altar of his political ambitions, like everything else.

where have you been the last 10 years? BTW- you serve?

 

[Dot Com]

Because the Iraqi's wanted us to leave.

Not according to people who were handling the negotiations.

But, again, you will repeat anything fed into the Prog Collective

Like the wall street journal? Lets play a game...I provide a source backing what I say and you do the same. I'll go first

BAGHDAD—Prime Minister Nouri al-Maliki ruled out the presence of any U.S. troops in Iraq after the end of 2011, saying his new government and the country's security forces were capable of confronting any remaining threats to Iraq's security, sovereignty and unity.

Iraqi Prime Minister Says U.S. Forces Must Leave On Time - WSJ

Your turn? "Do the Rubioooo"

you asking Frank57 to back up what he says w/ credible sources? You're funny

 

[ClosedCaption]

Obama threw it all away when he switched side to support the Jihadists

you people and your rw hyperbole. How many decades of occupation do repub chickenhawks, like Cheney, need to win a war of choice? AND who is going to pay for it?

Too bad Condi didn't have the spine to stand up to Dick or at least resign instead of signing onto the biggest foreign policy disaster in a generation.

Frank57 never answered my above question. QUELLE SURPRISE..... NOT

Iraq was standing. It might have been wobbly, but it was on the way when Bush left office.

The disaster came when obama took Iraq in a new direction. The current disaster in Iraq occurred because obama armed ISIS in Syria. Had that not happened, Assad would have put down that rebellion in days and there would never have been an ISIS.

if a smoldering powderkeg, due to Malaki alienating all non-Shiia in the country = "standing", then yes Stop w/ the rw cray cray talk hackgrl

Yeah thats what Frank does...he says shit completely false then disappears when someone calls him on it.

 

[Camp]

Iraq was standing. It might have been wobbly, but it was on the way when Bush left office.

The disaster came when obama took Iraq in a new direction. The current disaster in Iraq occurred because obama armed ISIS in Syria. Had that not happened, Assad would have put down that rebellion in days and there would never have been an ISIS.

The last year Bush was in charge of Iraq over around 10,000 innocent civilians, most of them children and woman were killed in collateral combat damage and bombings. When Bush left office Iraq was a friggin hell on earth and America was loosing an average of one soldier per day. Casualties for both civilians and US military were decreased by over half the first year Obama took control. The next two years he reduced US casualties to about one per week instead of one per day. Eventually he reduced the casualties of US military to 0 per day, week and year. 0 casualties was the goal. Obama's greatest success.

 

[Dot Com]

Wow talk about fair...A Republican on a republican site claims that its all his political opponents fault. Thats shocking...ly typical.

Got anything from yanno...not a hack site or a politician looking to score points or disproves the reporting from WSJ?

See, this is what happens when you don't read the articles you link

"But Mr. Maliki said the only way for any of the remaining 50,000 or so American soldiers to stay beyond 2011 would be for the two nations to negotiate—with the approval of Iraq's Parliament—a new Status of Forces Agreement, or SOFA, similar to the one concluded in 2008."

You didn't read the article, right? You saw the headline and grabbed it.

Oh I have to follow the link in the link

The link goes here: Donilon: Violence In Iraq Due To al Maliki Not Accommodating Opponents | Video | RealClearPolitics

Nowhere in that link does it have that paragraph you included.

It does include this exchange with Bob:

BOB SCHIEFFER: You know I must say that a lot of people, including Senator Graham, who a couple of years ago said that if we leave there without leaving a residual force, this is exactly what's going to happen. Well, what they said seems to have happened.

THOMAS DONILON: Well, I think, no, I think what happened is this, and think back, all right. At the end of December 2011, the United States withdrew its forces. That had been, though, after eight and a half years of working in Iraq. We tried to get a Status of Forces Agreement that is an agreement by the Iraqi government to provide the protections to our soldiers needed if we were going to stay and they wouldn't provide it. And, indeed, if you think about the situation at that point, what they were telling us is is they politically couldn't provide it after eight and a half years.

snip

BOB SCHIEFFER: --the Status of Forces Agreement is something that says, well, for example, if an American soldier is arrested or becomes captive of the Israeli government they can take him into court. They can try him, that we have no jurisdiction. We have never left troops in a country without that kind of agreement at least not in modern times as far as--

THOMAS DONILON: That's exactly right.

BOB SCHIEFFER: --as far as I can remember but--

THOMAS DONILON: That's exactly right, Bob. That's important.

Now that is what your link links too. Care to explain where you got your paragraph? Or why the info your link links too says the opposite of Graham?

OOPS!!! [MENTION=19448]CrusaderFrank[/MENTION] EVERY school child knew that.

As to the OP, I pretty much slam-dunked the rw meme that if we just stayed another decade or three, the Muslims would welcome infidels to occupy their country

 

[Ibentoken]

The majority of democrats and republicans and even the UNITED NATIONS voted for invading Iraq. Now it's Bush's fault. You leftist trash are nasty sick jackals.

 

[Camp]

See, this is what happens when you don't read the articles you link

"But Mr. Maliki said the only way for any of the remaining 50,000 or so American soldiers to stay beyond 2011 would be for the two nations to negotiate—with the approval of Iraq's Parliament—a new Status of Forces Agreement, or SOFA, similar to the one concluded in 2008."

You didn't read the article, right? You saw the headline and grabbed it.

Oh I have to follow the link in the link

The link goes here: Donilon: Violence In Iraq Due To al Maliki Not Accommodating Opponents | Video | RealClearPolitics

Nowhere in that link does it have that paragraph you included.

It does include this exchange with Bob:



snip

BOB SCHIEFFER: --the Status of Forces Agreement is something that says, well, for example, if an American soldier is arrested or becomes captive of the Israeli government they can take him into court. They can try him, that we have no jurisdiction. We have never left troops in a country without that kind of agreement at least not in modern times as far as--

THOMAS DONILON: That's exactly right.

BOB SCHIEFFER: --as far as I can remember but--

THOMAS DONILON: That's exactly right, Bob. That's important.

Now that is what your link links too. Care to explain where you got your paragraph? Or why the info your link links too says the opposite of Graham?

OOPS!!! [MENTION=19448]CrusaderFrank[/MENTION] EVERY school child knew that.

As to the OP, I pretty much slam-dunked the rw meme that if we just stayed another decade or three, the Muslims would welcome infidels to occupy their country

Ya, but the Sunni would still not get along with Shiite and the Persians and Arabs will always hate each other the way they have since biblical times.

 

[Camp]

The majority of democrats and republicans and even the UNITED NATIONS voted for invading Iraq. Now it's Bush's fault. You leftist trash are nasty sick jackals.

No they didn't.

 

[Dot Com]

I'll bet Al Qaeda is using Obama in their recruiting posters.

Join Jihad, the Prophet Obama guides us! We have All the land from Aleppo to Baghdad and $15B in the best US Equipment. Praise be to Obama! Praise be his Holy Name!

I'll ask again....Care to explain where you got your paragraph? Why does the paragraph you copied from your link does not exist on your link?

See you accused me of not reading your link then it was found that YOU didnt read it because the link says the OPPOSITE of Graham

why does the copied info say the opposite of your link to Breitbart and Lindsey Graham?

yeah Franky

The majority of democrats and republicans and even the UNITED NATIONS voted for invading Iraq. Now it's Bush's fault. You leftist trash are nasty sick jackals.

Ever heard of UN Article 2(4)?

 

[Harry Dresden]

Too bad you people, such as [MENTION=19448]CrusaderFrank[/MENTION] & 10-20+/- other cons/repub drones on this board, keep saying that Iraq was a brilliant foreign policy move , were too busy lapping-up what Dick, Condi, & Colin were spoon-feeding them

Heres just ONE POINT made in the full page ad run prior to Bu$h II's war:

http://mearsheimer.uchicago.edu/pdfs/P0012.pdf
26 September 2002 New York Times Advertisement

Even if we win easily, we have no plausible exit strategy. Iraq is a deeply divided society that the United States would have to occupy and police for many years to create a viable state.

This guy was a signatory and was interviewed on cspan. Needless to say, he pointed-out the obvious Invading Iraq was a collossal foreign policy disaster that broke America's economic back.

Shibley Telhami

Washington Journal Middle East History | Video | C-SPAN.org

June 22, 2014
Sunni-Shiite Conflict in Iraq

Shibley Telhami talked about the history of Islamic sects in Iraq. Topics included the differences between Sunnis, Shias, and Kurd. He also discussed the history of sharia law and the region as it had been under the rule of Saddam Hussein.

TOLD YOU SO Thanks A LOT chickenhawks

thats funny Dottie.....you calling someone a Drone....thats almost as funny as you saying someone is whining...

 

[Ibentoken]

Bush lied to invade Iraq.

So did democrats and the UN.

 

[chikenwing]

No matter how many times,the third grade,I told you so mentality is paraded around,by people like the OP,Bush lied people died BS.It will never change that facts that The Dems are just as responsible as anyone and most likely even more for their two faced back peddling for political gain, I was for i befor I was against it shit.

It shows the level of intelligence and integrity,missing with this type of person.

 

[Dot Com]

Too bad you people, such as [MENTION=19448]CrusaderFrank[/MENTION] & 10-20+/- other cons/repub drones on this board, keep saying that Iraq was a brilliant foreign policy move , were too busy lapping-up what Dick, Condi, & Colin were spoon-feeding them

Heres just ONE POINT made in the full page ad run prior to Bu$h II's war:

http://mearsheimer.uchicago.edu/pdfs/P0012.pdf
26 September 2002 New York Times Advertisement

Even if we win easily, we have no plausible exit strategy. Iraq is a deeply divided society that the United States would have to occupy and police for many years to create a viable state.

This guy was a signatory and was interviewed on cspan. Needless to say, he pointed-out the obvious Invading Iraq was a collossal foreign policy disaster that broke America's economic back.

Shibley Telhami

Washington Journal Middle East History | Video | C-SPAN.org

June 22, 2014
Sunni-Shiite Conflict in Iraq

Shibley Telhami talked about the history of Islamic sects in Iraq. Topics included the differences between Sunnis, Shias, and Kurd. He also discussed the history of sharia law and the region as it had been under the rule of Saddam Hussein.

TOLD YOU SO Thanks A LOT chickenhawks

thats funny Dottie.....you calling someone a Drone....thats almost as funny as you saying someone is whining...

so I took you off ignore ystrdy & the 1st post I see by you is an partisan ad hom whine? Know what that means? Back on ignore for ANOTHER 2 years Can't say I didn't give you a chance hackboi

As to my OP- its pretty clear-cut. The last Repub Admin broke this nation's back [economically] (what OBL's goal was BTW) by willfully ignoring scholars who warned them against their "it'll pay for itself" foreign entanglement.