Guess Who Has The Most Powerful Military Force In The World

[Campbell]

Reason US is weak lately is obvious enough. We're not fighting wars to win any more. We're pulling every punch pissing ourselves how it'll play in the media. Never win a war worrying about the media coverage.

In WWII we fought all out using what our own generals called 'terror bombing.' Incendiaries, attacks against civilian targets and infrastructure. And we won in multiple countries and on multiple fronts in under 4 years. Ever since though we've fought to be more PC and inoffensive than the enemy. And the result's been easily predictable. Wars agaisnt vastly inferior forces take 14+ years and end in a loss.

Democrats are making every effective weapons system we have illegal.

That's a goddam boldfaced lie!!

Not at all.

They're like Hillary.

It's unfair for us to be capable of obliterating our enemies. White Phosphorus has been rendered illegal. The neutron bomb....illegal. Chemical and biological weapons....banned. Next.....nukes. DIME (Dense Inert Metal Explosive)....banned.

The left will find that if a weapons system causes terrible results....which what it was intended for.....it becomes a target to be internationally banned. So they're slowly picking away at our weapons systems. Anything that is effective becomes illegal through heavy pressure from the left.

LMAO!!! Who started the Manhattan Project...Roosevelt. Who authorized dropping the only two atomic bombs ever used in combat...Truman. Do you people ever really think about what you're posting at these places?

 

[M14 Shooter]

You don't have a clue. This country has a defensive shield set up around it and not one missile stands a chance of penetrating it.

Help me out here -- are you arguing from ignorance or dishonesty?

I'm kinda surprised. Reagan's Strategic Defense Initiative(Star Wars) cost this nation about a trillion dollars. How is it you're not proud of what the old movie star did?

SDI didn't cost anywhere near that much, and was never put in place.
Do you always talk out your ass like this or do you save it for special occasions?

 

[Campbell]

You don't have a clue. This country has a defensive shield set up around it and not one missile stands a chance of penetrating it.

Help me out here -- are you arguing from ignorance or dishonesty?

I'm kinda surprised. Reagan's Strategic Defense Initiative(Star Wars) cost this nation about a trillion dollars. How is it you're not proud of what the old movie star did?

SDI didn't cost anywhere near that much, and was never put in place.
Do you always talk out your ass like this or do you save it for special occasions?

Whatever you say Einstein! We have it installed in Europe and Israel uses a version of it every time one of the missles is launched by the Palestinians. Do you ever read the news. When Kim Jung Un was rambling on about nuking somebody I read that even if he had the capability all he would do is waste his rockets firing at us.

About SDI....."A Rose By Any Other Name Is Yet As Sweet" ~SnakeShit~

 

[rightwinger]

You don't have a clue. This country has a defensive shield set up around it and not one missile stands a chance of penetrating it.

Help me out here -- are you arguing from ignorance or dishonesty?

I'm kinda surprised. Reagan's Strategic Defense Initiative(Star Wars) cost this nation about a trillion dollars. How is it you're not proud of what the old movie star did?

SDI didn't cost anywhere near that much, and was never put in place.
Do you always talk out your ass like this or do you save it for special occasions?

Whatever you say Einstein! We have it installed in Europe and Israel uses a version of it every time one of the missles is launched by the Palestinians. Do you ever read the news. When Kim Jung Un was rambling on about nuking somebody I read that even if he had the capability all he would do is waste his rockets firing at us.

About SDI....."A Rose By Any Other Name Is Yet As Sweet" ~SnakeShit~

Missile defense systems are low altitude. SDI was space based

 

[Redfish]

OP is confusing "Powerful" with "Expensive".

Russia, In Syria, is doing in a matter of weeks what the US couldn't do in years.

wrong, the US military could have cleaned out that cess pool is a week. All they needed was a CIC who wanted it cleaned out rather than strengthened.

 

[jon_berzerk]

the Russian footage taken of their smart weapons in action

have not been target on to say the least

 

[Redfish]

the Russian footage taken of their smart weapons in action

have not been target on to say the least

true, but Putin is taking out ISIS while obozo sits in a golf cart with his thumb up his ass.

 

[rightwinger]

the Russian footage taken of their smart weapons in action

have not been target on to say the least

true, but Putin is taking out ISIS while obozo sits in a golf cart with his thumb up his ass.

Putin thinks he is taking out ISIS

Maintaining a peace in that shithole is the hard part....ask Bush

 

[M14 Shooter]

You don't have a clue. This country has a defensive shield set up around it and not one missile stands a chance of penetrating it.

Help me out here -- are you arguing from ignorance or dishonesty?

I'm kinda surprised. Reagan's Strategic Defense Initiative(Star Wars) cost this nation about a trillion dollars. How is it you're not proud of what the old movie star did?

SDI didn't cost anywhere near that much, and was never put in place.
Do you always talk out your ass like this or do you save it for special occasions?

Whatever you say Einstein! We have it installed in Europe and Israel uses a version of it every time one of the missles is launched by the Palestinians.

You speak from pure ignorance here.
SDI is a specific set of systems with a specific set of parameters that was designed to do a specific job.
Except for certain overlaps in concept, nothing we have today is related to SDI.

 

[Wyatt earp]

Active Military...1,369,532

As of 2014 the army of the United States of America is one of the strongest armies in the world, if not the strongest – and that comes down to money. The yearly budget that the United States of America government has allocated to their army is more than six hundred and twelve BILLION dollars. Yes, you read that right: more than six hundred and twelve billion dollars. It is hard to match the global firepower of a country that spends that much on an army! This is probably because, despite not having a single battle on their own soil for tens if not hundreds of years, American troops are currently deployed in nearly one hundred and fifty countries.

Just curious......how would you feel if every time you went to do your grocery shopping there were troops there from a foreign country.....often armed. It seems that somewhere along the way Dwight D. Eisenhower's warning about a military/industrial complex got lost in the fray:

Number of soldiers doesn't equal power. Didn't you see "300?"

Seriously...we have eleven aircraft carriers. Nearly all of the other military countries don't have one. We don't just lead by a little.

India has 3 last I read

 

[M14 Shooter]

Active Military...1,369,532

As of 2014 the army of the United States of America is one of the strongest armies in the world, if not the strongest – and that comes down to money. The yearly budget that the United States of America government has allocated to their army is more than six hundred and twelve BILLION dollars. Yes, you read that right: more than six hundred and twelve billion dollars. It is hard to match the global firepower of a country that spends that much on an army! This is probably because, despite not having a single battle on their own soil for tens if not hundreds of years, American troops are currently deployed in nearly one hundred and fifty countries.

Just curious......how would you feel if every time you went to do your grocery shopping there were troops there from a foreign country.....often armed. It seems that somewhere along the way Dwight D. Eisenhower's warning about a military/industrial complex got lost in the fray:

Number of soldiers doesn't equal power. Didn't you see "300?"

Seriously...we have eleven aircraft carriers. Nearly all of the other military countries don't have one. We don't just lead by a little.

India has 3 last I read

Many nations have ships that carry aircraft - the US Navy has 15 such ships and refers to them as "amphibious assault ships"
List of United States Navy amphibious warfare ships - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
What the US navy calls "carriers" the rest of the world refers to as "supercarriers"
Supercarrier - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

As said before: Someone has to keep the SLOC open.

 

[Campbell]

the Russian footage taken of their smart weapons in action

have not been target on to say the least

true, but Putin is taking out ISIS while obozo sits in a golf cart with his thumb up his ass.

Putin thinks he is taking out ISIS

Maintaining a peace in that shithole is the hard part....ask Bush

You nailed it. Bush with his Texas cowboy analysis decided to get revenge against Saddam Hussein for trying to assassinate his Daddy in Qatar, circa 1993. Well he did but he caused the deaths of 4500 young Americans and got about 35,000 seriously wounded. Add to that a trillion dollars of money borrowed from foreign banks.
Bush was the first president to arrange loans with China. Now we owe them about $1.5 trillion. Bush wasn't the only Republican who wanted to invade Iraq. Read this letter written to Clinton and then check the signers:

December 18, 1998


The Honorable William J. Clinton
President of the United States
Washington, DC

Dear Mr. President,

We are writing you because we are convinced that current American policy toward Iraq is not succeeding, and that we may soon face a threat in the Middle East more serious than any we have known since the end of the Cold War. In your upcoming State of the Union Address, you have an opportunity to chart a clear and determined course for meeting this threat. We urge you to seize that opportunity, and to enunciate a new strategy that would secure the interests of the U.S. and our friends and allies around the world. That strategy should aim, above all, at the removal of Saddam Hussein's regime from power. We stand ready to offer our full support in this difficult but necessary endeavor. The policy of containment of Saddam Hussein has been steadily eroding over the past several months. As recent events have demonstrated, we can no longer depend on our partners in the Gulf War coalition to continue to uphold the sanctions or to punish Saddam when he blocks or evades UN inspections. Our ability to ensure that Saddam Hussein is not producing weapons of mass destruction, therefore, has substantially diminished. Even if full inspections were eventually to resume, which now seems highly unlikely, experience has shown that it is difficult if not impossible to monitor Iraq's chemical and biological weapons production. The lengthy period during which the inspectors will have been unable to enter many Iraqi facilities has made it even less likely that they will be able to uncover all of Saddam's secrets. As a result, in the not-too-distant future we will be unable to determine with any reasonable level of confidence whether Iraq does or does not possess such weapons. Such uncertainty will, by itself, have a seriously destabilizing effect on the entire Middle East. It hardly needs to be added that if Saddam does acquire the capability to deliver weapons of mass destruction, as he is almost certain to do if we continue along the present course, the safety of American troops in the region, of our friends and allies like Israel and the moderate Arab states, and a significant portion of the world's supply of oil will all be put at hazard. As you have rightly declared, Mr. President, the security of the world in the first part of the 21st century will be determined largely by how we handle this threat.
Given the magnitude of the threat, the current policy, which depends for its success upon the steadfastness of our coalition partners and upon the cooperation of Saddam Hussein, is dangerously inadequate.
The only acceptable strategy is one that eliminates the possibility that Iraq will be able to use or threaten to use weapons of mass destruction. In the near term, this means a willingness to undertake military action as diplomacy is clearly failing. In the long term, it means removing Saddam Hussein and his regime from power. That now needs to become the aim of American foreign policy.
We urge you to articulate this aim, and to turn your Administration's attention to implementing a strategy for removing Saddam's regime from power. This will require a full complement of diplomatic, political and military efforts. Although we are fully aware of the dangers and difficulties in implementing this policy, we believe the dangers of failing to do so are far greater. We believe the U.S. has the authority under existing UN resolutions to take the necessary steps, including military steps, to protect our vital interests in the Gulf. In any case, American policy cannot continue to be crippled by a misguided insistence on unanimity in the UN Security Council. We urge you to act decisively. If you act now to end the threat of weapons of mass destruction against the U.S. or its allies, you will be acting in the most fundamental national security interests of the country. If we accept a course of weakness and drift, we put our interests and our future at risk.

Sincerely,

Elliott Abrams Richard L. Armitag William J. Bennett
Jeffrey Bergner John Bolton Paula Dobriansky
Francis Fukuyama Robert Kagan Zalmay Khalilzad
William Kristol Richard Perle Peter W.Rodman
Donald Rumsfeld William Schneider, Jr. Vin Weber
Paul Wolfowitz R. James Woolsey
Robert B. Zoellick

 

[Jantje_Smit]

the Russian footage taken of their smart weapons in action

have not been target on to say the least

What you see in those videos is taken by a drone or another aircraft, don't be fooled by where the cross is pointing. The moderate jihadis wouldn't be crying so much if the bombs didn't hit them.

 

[Wyatt earp]

the Russian footage taken of their smart weapons in action

have not been target on to say the least

true, but Putin is taking out ISIS while obozo sits in a golf cart with his thumb up his ass.

Putin thinks he is taking out ISIS

Maintaining a peace in that shithole is the hard part....ask Bush

You nailed it. Bush with his Texas cowboy analysis decided to get revenge against Saddam Hussein for trying to assassinate his Daddy in Qatar, circa 1993. Well he did but he caused the deaths of 4500 young Americans and got about 35,000 seriously wounded. Add to that a trillion dollars of money borrowed from foreign banks.
Bush was the first president to arrange loans with China. Now we owe them about $1.5 trillion. Bush wasn't the only Republican who wanted to invade Iraq. Read this letter written to Clinton and then check the signers:

December 18, 1998


The Honorable William J. Clinton
President of the United States
Washington, DC

Dear Mr. President,

We are writing you because we are convinced that current American policy toward Iraq is not succeeding, and that we may soon face a threat in the Middle East more serious than any we have known since the end of the Cold War. In your upcoming State of the Union Address, you have an opportunity to chart a clear and determined course for meeting this threat. We urge you to seize that opportunity, and to enunciate a new strategy that would secure the interests of the U.S. and our friends and allies around the world. That strategy should aim, above all, at the removal of Saddam Hussein's regime from power. We stand ready to offer our full support in this difficult but necessary endeavor. The policy of containment of Saddam Hussein has been steadily eroding over the past several months. As recent events have demonstrated, we can no longer depend on our partners in the Gulf War coalition to continue to uphold the sanctions or to punish Saddam when he blocks or evades UN inspections. Our ability to ensure that Saddam Hussein is not producing weapons of mass destruction, therefore, has substantially diminished. Even if full inspections were eventually to resume, which now seems highly unlikely, experience has shown that it is difficult if not impossible to monitor Iraq's chemical and biological weapons production. The lengthy period during which the inspectors will have been unable to enter many Iraqi facilities has made it even less likely that they will be able to uncover all of Saddam's secrets. As a result, in the not-too-distant future we will be unable to determine with any reasonable level of confidence whether Iraq does or does not possess such weapons. Such uncertainty will, by itself, have a seriously destabilizing effect on the entire Middle East. It hardly needs to be added that if Saddam does acquire the capability to deliver weapons of mass destruction, as he is almost certain to do if we continue along the present course, the safety of American troops in the region, of our friends and allies like Israel and the moderate Arab states, and a significant portion of the world's supply of oil will all be put at hazard. As you have rightly declared, Mr. President, the security of the world in the first part of the 21st century will be determined largely by how we handle this threat. Given the
magnitude of the threat, the current policy, which depends for its success upon the steadfastness of our coalition partners and upon the cooperation of Saddam Hussein, is dangerously inadequate.
The only acceptable strategy is one that eliminates the possibility that Iraq will be able to use or threaten to use weapons of mass destruction. In the near term, this means a willingness to undertake military action as diplomacy is clearly failing. In the long term, it means removing Saddam Hussein and his regime from power. That now needs to become the aim of American foreign policy.
We urge you to articulate this aim, and to turn your Administration's attention to implementing a strategy for removing Saddam's regime from power. This will require a full complement of diplomatic, political and military efforts. Although we are fully aware of the dangers and difficulties in implementing this policy, we believe the dangers of failing to do so are far greater. We believe the U.S. has the authority under existing UN resolutions to take the necessary steps, including military steps, to protect our vital interests in the Gulf. In any case, American policy cannot continue to be crippled by a misguided insistence on unanimity in the UN Security Council. We urge you to act decisively. If you act now to end the threat of weapons of mass destruction against the U.S. or its allies, you will be acting in the most fundamental national security interests of the country. If we accept a course of weakness and drift, we put our interests and our future at risk.

Sincerely,

Elliott Abrams Richard L. Armitag William J. Bennett
Jeffrey Bergner John Bolton Paula Dobriansky
Francis Fukuyama Robert Kagan Zalmay Khalilzad
William Kristol Richard Perle Peter W.Rodman
Donald Rumsfeld William Schneider, Jr. Vin Weber
Paul Wolfowitz R. James Woolsey
Robert B. Zoellick

WTF are you talking about now?

Not only you didn't know India has 3 aircraft carriers, china has been buying treasury bonds since the 80s

What fucking loan?


https://www.quora.com/When-did-China-begin-to-buy-United-States-bonds-debt

 

[Campbell]

You don't have a clue. This country has a defensive shield set up around it and not one missile stands a chance of penetrating it.

Help me out here -- are you arguing from ignorance or dishonesty?

I'm kinda surprised. Reagan's Strategic Defense Initiative(Star Wars) cost this nation about a trillion dollars. How is it you're not proud of what the old movie star did?

SDI didn't cost anywhere near that much, and was never put in place.
Do you always talk out your ass like this or do you save it for special occasions?

Whatever you say Einstein! We have it installed in Europe and Israel uses a version of it every time one of the missles is launched by the Palestinians. Do you ever read the news. When Kim Jung Un was rambling on about nuking somebody I read that even if he had the capability all he would do is waste his rockets firing at us.

About SDI....."A Rose By Any Other Name Is Yet As Sweet" ~SnakeShit~

Missile defense systems are low altitude. SDI was space based

Whatever it was my son worked at GE Aerospace at King of Prussia, PA from 1988-1993 and that's what they were doing.

 

[Campbell]

the Russian footage taken of their smart weapons in action

have not been target on to say the least

true, but Putin is taking out ISIS while obozo sits in a golf cart with his thumb up his ass.

Putin thinks he is taking out ISIS

Maintaining a peace in that shithole is the hard part....ask Bush

You nailed it. Bush with his Texas cowboy analysis decided to get revenge against Saddam Hussein for trying to assassinate his Daddy in Qatar, circa 1993. Well he did but he caused the deaths of 4500 young Americans and got about 35,000 seriously wounded. Add to that a trillion dollars of money borrowed from foreign banks.
Bush was the first president to arrange loans with China. Now we owe them about $1.5 trillion. Bush wasn't the only Republican who wanted to invade Iraq. Read this letter written to Clinton and then check the signers:

December 18, 1998


The Honorable William J. Clinton
President of the United States
Washington, DC

Dear Mr. President,

We are writing you because we are convinced that current American policy toward Iraq is not succeeding, and that we may soon face a threat in the Middle East more serious than any we have known since the end of the Cold War. In your upcoming State of the Union Address, you have an opportunity to chart a clear and determined course for meeting this threat. We urge you to seize that opportunity, and to enunciate a new strategy that would secure the interests of the U.S. and our friends and allies around the world. That strategy should aim, above all, at the removal of Saddam Hussein's regime from power. We stand ready to offer our full support in this difficult but necessary endeavor. The policy of containment of Saddam Hussein has been steadily eroding over the past several months. As recent events have demonstrated, we can no longer depend on our partners in the Gulf War coalition to continue to uphold the sanctions or to punish Saddam when he blocks or evades UN inspections. Our ability to ensure that Saddam Hussein is not producing weapons of mass destruction, therefore, has substantially diminished. Even if full inspections were eventually to resume, which now seems highly unlikely, experience has shown that it is difficult if not impossible to monitor Iraq's chemical and biological weapons production. The lengthy period during which the inspectors will have been unable to enter many Iraqi facilities has made it even less likely that they will be able to uncover all of Saddam's secrets. As a result, in the not-too-distant future we will be unable to determine with any reasonable level of confidence whether Iraq does or does not possess such weapons. Such uncertainty will, by itself, have a seriously destabilizing effect on the entire Middle East. It hardly needs to be added that if Saddam does acquire the capability to deliver weapons of mass destruction, as he is almost certain to do if we continue along the present course, the safety of American troops in the region, of our friends and allies like Israel and the moderate Arab states, and a significant portion of the world's supply of oil will all be put at hazard. As you have rightly declared, Mr. President, the security of the world in the first part of the 21st century will be determined largely by how we handle this threat. Given the
magnitude of the threat, the current policy, which depends for its success upon the steadfastness of our coalition partners and upon the cooperation of Saddam Hussein, is dangerously inadequate.
The only acceptable strategy is one that eliminates the possibility that Iraq will be able to use or threaten to use weapons of mass destruction. In the near term, this means a willingness to undertake military action as diplomacy is clearly failing. In the long term, it means removing Saddam Hussein and his regime from power. That now needs to become the aim of American foreign policy.
We urge you to articulate this aim, and to turn your Administration's attention to implementing a strategy for removing Saddam's regime from power. This will require a full complement of diplomatic, political and military efforts. Although we are fully aware of the dangers and difficulties in implementing this policy, we believe the dangers of failing to do so are far greater. We believe the U.S. has the authority under existing UN resolutions to take the necessary steps, including military steps, to protect our vital interests in the Gulf. In any case, American policy cannot continue to be crippled by a misguided insistence on unanimity in the UN Security Council. We urge you to act decisively. If you act now to end the threat of weapons of mass destruction against the U.S. or its allies, you will be acting in the most fundamental national security interests of the country. If we accept a course of weakness and drift, we put our interests and our future at risk.

Sincerely,

Elliott Abrams Richard L. Armitag William J. Bennett
Jeffrey Bergner John Bolton Paula Dobriansky
Francis Fukuyama Robert Kagan Zalmay Khalilzad
William Kristol Richard Perle Peter W.Rodman
Donald Rumsfeld William Schneider, Jr. Vin Weber
Paul Wolfowitz R. James Woolsey
Robert B. Zoellick

WTF are you talking about now?

Not only you didn't know India has 3 aircraft carriers, china has been buying treasury bonds since the 80s

What fucking loan?


https://www.quora.com/When-did-China-begin-to-buy-United-States-bonds-debt

Why do you suppose a country buys our bonds? We get the money, they get the interest at maturity....or at such time as they cash them. I have at least 100 bonds in a box here at my home now which my wife and I purchased back in the 1960s-1980s.

Do you ever read the news? Check the dateline on this piece:

Bush Administration Adds $4 Trillion To National Debt

"With no fanfare and little notice, the national debt has grown by more than $4 trillion during George W. Bush's presidency.
It's the biggest increase under any president in U.S history.
On the day President Bush took office, the national debt stood at $5.727 trillion. The latest number from the Treasury Department shows the national debt now stands at more than $9.849 trillion. That's a 71.9 percent increase on Mr. Bush's watch.

The bailout plan now pending in Congress could add hundreds of billions of dollars to the national debt – though President Bush said this morning he expects that over time, "much if not all" of the bailout money "will be paid back."

But the government is taking no chances. Buried deep in the hundred pages of bailout legislation is a provision that would raise the statutory ceiling on the national debt to $11.315 trillion. It'll be the 7th time the debt limit has been raised during this administration. In fact it was just two months ago, on July 30, that President Bush signed the Housing and Economic Recovery Act, which contained a provision raising the debt ceiling to $10.615 trillion."

..........................Total U S Debt...........................

09/30/2014 $17,824,071,380,733.82
09/30/2013 $16,738,183,526,697.32
09/30/2012 $16,066,241,407,385.89
09/30/2011 $14,790,340,328,557.15
09/30/2010 $13,561,623,030,891.79
09/30/2009 $11,909,829,003,511.75(80% Of All Debt Across 232 Years Borrowed By Reagan And Bushes)
09/30/2008 $10,024,724,896,912.49(Times Square Debt Clock Modified To Accommodate Tens of Trillions)
09/30/2007 $9,007,653,372,262.48
09/30/2006 $8,506,973,899,215.23
09/30/2005 $7,932,709,661,723.50
09/30/2004 $7,379,052,696,330.32
09/30/2003 $6,783,231,062,743.62(Second Bush Tax Cuts Enacted Using Reconciliation)
09/30/2002 $6,228,235,965,597.16
09/30/2001 $5,807,463,412,200.06(First Bush Tax Cuts Enacted Using Reconciliation)
09/30/2000 $5,674,178,209,886.86(Administration And Congress Arguing About How To Use Surplus)
09/30/1999 $5,656,270,901,615.43(First Surplus Generated...On Track To Pay Off Debt By 2012)
09/30/1998 $5,526,193,008,897.62
09/30/1997 $5,413,146,011,397.34
09/30/1996 $5,224,810,939,135.73
09/29/1995 $4,973,982,900,709.39
09/30/1994 $4,692,749,910,013.32
09/30/1993 $4,411,488,883,139.38 ( Debt Quadrupled By Reagan/Bush41)
09/30/1992 $4,064,620,655,521.66
09/30/1991 $3,665,303,351,697.03
09/28/1990 $3,233,313,451,777.25
09/29/1989 $2,857,430,960,187.32
09/30/1988 $2,602,337,712,041.16
09/30/1987 $2,350,276,890,953.00
09/30/1986 $2,125,302,616,658.42
09/30/1985 $1,823,103,000,000.00
09/30/1984 $1,572,266,000,000.00
09/30/1983 $1,377,210,000,000.00
09/30/1982 $1,142,034,000,000.00(Total Debt Passes $1 Trillion)(Reagan Slashed Tax Rates To Pre Depression Levels)
09/30/1981 $997,855,000,000.00

 

[jon_berzerk]

the Russian footage taken of their smart weapons in action

have not been target on to say the least

What you see in those videos is taken by a drone or another aircraft, don't be fooled by where the cross is pointing. The moderate jihadis wouldn't be crying so much if the bombs didn't hit them.

they are not that accurate

 

[M14 Shooter]

You nailed it. Bush with his Texas cowboy analysis decided to get revenge against Saddam Hussein for trying to assassinate his Daddy in Qatar, circa 1993.

Mindless, bigoted, partisan nonsense.

 

[M14 Shooter]

Do you ever read the news? Check the dateline on this piece:
Bush Administration Adds $4 Trillion To National Debt
"With no fanfare and little notice, the national debt has grown by more than $4 trillion during George W. Bush's presidency.

You must then absolutely hate The Obama.

 

[Campbell]

Do you ever read the news? Check the dateline on this piece:
Bush Administration Adds $4 Trillion To National Debt
"With no fanfare and little notice, the national debt has grown by more than $4 trillion during George W. Bush's presidency.

You must then absolutely hate The Obama.

Obama has borrowed over two trillion dollars just to pay interest on the Reagan/Bushes debt. After he cooled down two Bush wars...one which was totally unnecessary he has spent less than any of them: