Question: why do liberals always say Bush started TWO unwarranted wars?

[rightwinger]

So there are some liberals who think both wars were unwarranted, others that said they never said both were.

Which is it?

Were both wars unwarranted?

Liberals are clueless hacks and I told you they are nothing but hopeless double talking hypocritical hack puppets.

Nothing more. Fucking truthers.

Keep in mind, these are people that voted for Obama twice, brag about it, and thinks every scandal surrounding him is a myth. Like they thought terrorism was a bumper sticker myth then cheer when Obama drones them.

The funny thing is watching think they make sense. Pieces of shit.

So, which is it? Were both wars unwarranted. Have fun with these answers fellow conservatives. There is already 26 pages full of them saying yes both were and no they were on the side of the Afghan one. Now, there is one saying the Afghan one was not justified either.

Yes, they think the taliban are good and decent people. Just like....they think Saddam was a good and decent man.

Liberals are indeed the scourge on our country and in our world. Hopeless ignorant hypocritical know it all hacks.

If you listen to the banging drums beforehand....ALL wars are warranted
They are all about patriotism, retaliation or some perceived threat

When you look back in retrospect you ask....Was it worth it?
VietNam was one of those wars and we paid a heavy price

Except for the extreme right, most of the world agrees that Iraq was unwarranted

Afghanistan is a different story. Our stated purpose of invading was to get the guys who did 9-11. But if that was our purpose, why did we stop so quickly? If we were there to get AlQaida and the Taliban, why didn't we chase them into Pakistan? That was part of the Bush Doctrine.....chase the terrorists wherever they are hiding.
If we were out to wipe out the Taliban, why did we give them back previously captured territory?

In retrospect, it seems our original stated purpose in Afgahanistan was not warranted because we didn't follow it.
In retrospect, was our 13 year invasion/occupation of Afghanistan worth it? I don't think so

I already dispatched you in pointing out you have no fucking clue what you are talking about. You are so fucking simple. I have mentioned and will say it again. You have no idea what logistics are all about, and you thinking that we were there to simply track down bin laden and al qaeda then you are simply clueless. That is what you keep on saying and it is absurd.

What is more, is your liar in chief knows it. Hence the reason he increased the war in Afghanistan, the reason he carried out countless drones on those "mythical terrorists" and the reason he never closed GTMO.

He carries on with his rhetoric in order to placate his ignorant base who always think they are the smartest people in the room and know more than those who are actually privy to intel.

In the meantime, you are not privy to it, and you pretend you are.

What has been proven beyond the shadow of all doubt is killing bin laden was not going to stop ALL terrorism and in this day and age we cannot afford to be so naive as to think this is a simple hit and run. Leave the country to their own devices only to see the exact same problem we had before.

You do not get that or you refuse to see it cause it does not fit into your left wing know it all amateurish narrative. However, that is the narrative the democrats placate to.

All while you blame Bush for everything and ignore all of the things democrats propagated before Bush took office, and what they are carrying out after Bush left office. In the effort of the Obama to placate his moronic constituency (in this election year) who cannot be convinced of anything, the world is running roughshod over our allies. Why? Cause they know they can take advantage of this president in this election year.

You keep on thinking you have a clue and you keep on thinking the war on terror was limited to bin laden. All while never asking the question......Hey bin laden was killed in 2011 and we are still in Afghanistan, why are we still there?

Of course the repeat of Vietnam is what we get where the killing fields are happening. Yes, I do blame the killing fields on the left that put great pressure on the politicians to end that war and leave the South Vietnamese to their own devices. Mass genocide is what ensued with pol pot and the khmer rouge.

That is precisely what we are seeing with this isis group that is committing their own version of genocide. I could swear the left is laughing at those actions and thousands upon thousands of people are being systematically exterminated.

We already know the pot heads did not care what happened to the South Vietnamese citizens at the hands of pol pot. Cause they celebrated that they "ended the war."

You do not get shit.

What a rambling piece of nonsense unrelated to your own thread

Self proclaimed "victories" are pretty shallow....don't you think?

 

[Sallow]

I just want Jedi and Dicombob and Sallow to say it.. Tell us that we should kept the Iraqis locked up with a madman while we bombed them daily and took away their economy.. OR do the right thing and let him out of containment. Either choice... THEN we can chat about what Booooosh decided to do to change an awful policy that would have hindered our efforts in Afghan anyway with YOUR preferred choices..

Thats the honesty required to resolve this issue of how we got here.

I'll say it.

Bombing Iraq and putting it under sanctions was a cruel policy. That goes for who ever was doing it, be it George HW Bush or Bill Clinton.

We've had a terrible policy about Iraq for a very long time. And it was mainly at the behest of the big oil lobby.

 

[Theowl32]

Let us look at rightwingers quotes shall we? The morons on the left will not see the contradictions or double talk, cause quite frankly liberalism is a real mental disorder.

Lets look at the variety of contradictory quotes.....

Bush started two preemptory wars

First time in history

He claims here that Bush started two preemptory wars. Yes, he claims Bush started two unprovoked wars.

He got approvals and thank yous for that too.

If the justification for invading Afganistan was to capture bin Laden:
Why did we stop short in Tora Bora?
Why didn't we follow him into Pakistan?
Why did Bush claim he doesn't think much about bin Laden?
Why did we pull forces who were fighting terrorists to invade Iraq?

^^^^^^

Look there everyone. He says we were not justified in "invading Afghanistan" and then complains that Bush did not "invade Pakistan" to get him. Could you imagine if Bush did and Pakistani citizens were killed? Fucking jokes.

If our justification in invading Afghanistan was to fight AlQaida.....why did we pull the plug after Bush allowed bin Laden to escape? Why didn't we follow him and other terrorists into Pakistan?

After Bush diverted the war on terror to invade Iraq, why did we pull our troops back in Afganistan and allow AlQaida to regain lost territory

NONE of that seems to support an invasion whose intent was to fight AlQaida and capture Bin Laden

He did it again here folks. He blames Bush for "invading Afghanistan and then holds it against him for not "invading Pakistan" as though he understood what that would entail to go into Pakistan. Something that coalition that was put together did not agree to. Then again rightwinger does not understand logistics. Then again rightwinger is a hopeless hypocrite.

I agree

I was all gung ho about Afgahanistan at the beginning. But after 13 years I ask....was it worth it?

Look here folks. rightwinger saying he was GUNG HO about Afghanistan in the beginning, yet he want to add his name to a list claiming Bush started two unwarranted wars.

He still probably thinks killing bin laden was going to end all terrorism. Wait, he thought terrorism was a bumper sticker myth put out by Boooooosh and republicans cause they really want oil over there. Wait a minute.......we have been there for 13 years, 6 of which have been under their liar in chief.

Their liar in chief increased the war. Oh right...I forgot. Rightwinger is a know it all who thinks he knows more than those who are privy to top secret intel. Of course he does. Meanwhile he was gung ho for the war, but still thinks both wars were UNWARRANTED.

Classic double talk people. I hope you are appreciating my efforts here.

We lost 3000 Americans on 9-11

In retaliation we lost close to another 10,000 in nation building Afghanistan and Iraq

In retrospect, was it worth it? I am leaning towards NO

Well here we are folks. More ignorance from someone who does not get what the war on terror is. He was gung ho, and here he is saying we should not have done anything after 911? We should have sent blew them kisses and say....thank you may I have another.

I am not sure what he is saying here. He did not want to get bin laden. Well, he is saying that was not worth it. Right?

Lets see, Pearl Harbor we lost over 2000 and how many did we lose in WWII in our war with Japan? Yes, he probably thinks that was not worth it either.

Just trying to keep up with liberal double talk and their pathetic hypocrisy.

I had no issue with a military incursion into Afghanistan to kick AlQaida's ass. We should have gone, cut off the Tora Bora escape routes and rounded them up. After that, we should have declared our mission accomplished in Afganistan. In and out in two years

The idea that we could create and maintain a functioning Democracy in our image was not worth it

Now here is saying he had no problem with military action in Afghanistan. Of course he shows his pure ignorance again along with his double talking hypocrisy in he thinks the war on terror was limited to bin laden and al qaeda.

Yet, folks he wants to add his name to the list that said Bush started both wars.

Funny aren't they?

Hope you all appreciate my efforts here. It is hard sifting through 28 pages of pure liberal bullshit.

I still say it was unwarranted

Iraq was never warranted in any way
If Afganistan had centered on kicking AlQaida ass and killing bin Laden it would have been warranted. But it became an exercise in nation building

If the invasion of Afghanistan was justified by getting the people who did 9-11, we would have followed them to the ends of the earth. Not giving up the chase because they escaped into Pakistan

Here we are folks, just a few posts later, rightwinger is claiming that he still thinks both wars were unwarranted even though he says he was gung ho about the Afghan one.

Yes folks, proof right here. They are all over the place, and shift from post to post. Yet they will deny they do it.

Wooooo weeee

It's not just "liberals," it's anyone who is not a rightwing partisan hack.

And it's said because it's true.

rightwinger approved this post, even though he claimed he was gung ho about the war in afghan. I guess he is saying Bush started the war he was gung ho about.

Again folks.

They think the number of deaths should be a 1 to 1 ratio with the number of deaths al qaeda caused on 911. Because Bush caused more deaths than the 3000 killed on 911, it is unwarranted and unjust.

Again, that must mean our involvement in WWII was unwarranted too. Wait, I do not know.

Can anyone decipher what they stand for? Nothing, they stand for nothing and they are ignorant as fuck.

 

[Theowl32]

Add my name to that list

That is what I thought rightwinger. You already said Bush did not start both wars, and now you are adding your pathetic double talking, hypocritical name to the list that says he did start both wars.


You stupid fucking double talking hypocritical piece of steaming shit.

Bush did not start both wars?

Then who was commander in chief?

Here we are folks, he still thinks Bush started both wars. Yes, he does. Then again he claimed he was gung ho about one of the wars that Bush supposedly started.


How is he not a truther everyone.

Can you believe they make sense to each other?

 

[Sallow]

They think the number of deaths should be a 1 to 1 ratio with the number of deaths al qaeda caused on 911. Because Bush caused more deaths than the 3000 killed on 911, it is unwarranted and unjust.

Again, that must mean our involvement in WWII was unwarranted too. Wait, I do not know.

Can anyone decipher what they stand for? Nothing, they stand for nothing and they are ignorant as fuck.

Revenge shouldn't be the motivation for any war. That's basically ridiculous.

And no nation attacked us, directly. If you want to get into "indirectly" the two actors on this page were Afghanistan (Who were basically clueless about what happened) and Saudi Arabia (Who financed the operation and okayed the operation).

Afghanistan was basically hosting terrorist camps for money. They didn't know or care why they were there. Most of the Taliban knew nothing about 9/11 and when the US invaded? They thought they were fighting Soviets again. Some of them still do.

Afghanistan should have been a very limited operation. The goals being:

1. Wipe out the terrorist camps.
2. Decapitate the Al Qaeda leadership.

It was simple enough and nearly got done.

But that wasn't the Bush agenda. The Bush agenda was to attack Iraq. He was saying he wanted to do that before he became President..and when he found a reason?

He did it.

And the consequences were enormous.

 

[Seawytch]

He only started one "war of choice." Afghanistan was a necessity. It had to be fought. Iraq was a huge blunder that we will pay for, for generations to come.

I disagree that Afghanistan "had to be fought". That's not how we actually ended up getting Osama bin Laden, by "fighting". Both were wars of choice...we just needed some sort of revenge after 9/11.

 

[Theowl32]

They think the number of deaths should be a 1 to 1 ratio with the number of deaths al qaeda caused on 911. Because Bush caused more deaths than the 3000 killed on 911, it is unwarranted and unjust.

Again, that must mean our involvement in WWII was unwarranted too. Wait, I do not know.

Can anyone decipher what they stand for? Nothing, they stand for nothing and they are ignorant as fuck.

Revenge shouldn't be the motivation for any war. That's basically ridiculous.

And no nation attacked us, directly. If you want to get into "indirectly" the two actors on this page were Afghanistan (Who were basically clueless about what happened) and Saudi Arabia (Who financed the operation and okayed the operation).

Afghanistan was basically hosting terrorist camps for money. They didn't know or care why they were there. Most of the Taliban knew nothing about 9/11 and when the US invaded? They thought they were fighting Soviets again. Some of them still do.

Afghanistan should have been a very limited operation. The goals being:

1. Wipe out the terrorist camps.
2. Decapitate the Al Qaeda leadership.

It was simple enough and nearly got done.

But that wasn't the Bush agenda. The Bush agenda was to attack Iraq. He was saying he wanted to do that before he became President..and when he found a reason?

He did it.

And the consequences were enormous.

More nonsensical bullshit from an asshole pathetic left wing pig.

It is not about "revenge" necessarily. They declared WAR you fucking hack!

When Japan attacked Pearl Harbor...they killed less than 3000.

Never mind you piece of unreal shit. You fucking people are so fucking ignorant AND pathetic.

FUCK YOU!

 

[Sallow]

That is what I thought rightwinger. You already said Bush did not start both wars, and now you are adding your pathetic double talking, hypocritical name to the list that says he did start both wars.


You stupid fucking double talking hypocritical piece of steaming shit.

Bush did not start both wars?

Then who was commander in chief?

Here we are folks, he still thinks Bush started both wars. Yes, he does. Then again he claimed he was gung ho about one of the wars that Bush supposedly started.


How is he not a truther everyone.

Can you believe they make sense to each other?

What are you saying?

That Bush didn't start these wars?

Get it out there.

 

[Seawytch]

Don't target the liberals. The whole world says it. They say it because he did.

Check out all of the truthers that approved this post.

candycorn (06-17-2014), DiabloBlanco (Yesterday), Esmeralda (06-17-2014), I.P.Freely (06-17-2014), Lakhota (Yesterday), Luddly Neddite (06-17-2014), Mr Clean (06-17-2014), PeoplePower (06-17-2014), Sallow (06-17-2014)


They are so pathetic.

Add my name to that list

Yup, mine too. (6-18-2014)

 

[Sallow]

They think the number of deaths should be a 1 to 1 ratio with the number of deaths al qaeda caused on 911. Because Bush caused more deaths than the 3000 killed on 911, it is unwarranted and unjust.

Again, that must mean our involvement in WWII was unwarranted too. Wait, I do not know.

Can anyone decipher what they stand for? Nothing, they stand for nothing and they are ignorant as fuck.

Revenge shouldn't be the motivation for any war. That's basically ridiculous.

And no nation attacked us, directly. If you want to get into "indirectly" the two actors on this page were Afghanistan (Who were basically clueless about what happened) and Saudi Arabia (Who financed the operation and okayed the operation).

Afghanistan was basically hosting terrorist camps for money. They didn't know or care why they were there. Most of the Taliban knew nothing about 9/11 and when the US invaded? They thought they were fighting Soviets again. Some of them still do.

Afghanistan should have been a very limited operation. The goals being:

1. Wipe out the terrorist camps.
2. Decapitate the Al Qaeda leadership.

It was simple enough and nearly got done.

But that wasn't the Bush agenda. The Bush agenda was to attack Iraq. He was saying he wanted to do that before he became President..and when he found a reason?

He did it.

And the consequences were enormous.

More nonsensical bullshit from an asshole pathetic left wing pig.

It is not about "revenge" necessarily. They declared WAR you fucking hack!

When Japan attacked Pearl Harbor...they killed less than 3000.

Never mind you piece of unreal shit. You fucking people are so fucking ignorant AND pathetic.

FUCK YOU!

Al Qaeda isn't a nation.

Do you understand that?

 

[rightwinger]

Let us look at rightwingers quotes shall we? The morons on the left will not see the contradictions or double talk, cause quite frankly liberalism is a real mental disorder.

Lets look at the variety of contradictory quotes.....

Bush started two preemptory wars

First time in history

He claims here that Bush started two preemptory wars. Yes, he claims Bush started two unprovoked wars.

He got approvals and thank yous for that too.

^^^^^^

Look there everyone. He says we were not justified in "invading Afghanistan" and then complains that Bush did not "invade Pakistan" to get him. Could you imagine if Bush did and Pakistani citizens were killed? Fucking jokes.

He did it again here folks. He blames Bush for "invading Afghanistan and then holds it against him for not "invading Pakistan" as though he understood what that would entail to go into Pakistan. Something that coalition that was put together did not agree to. Then again rightwinger does not understand logistics. Then again rightwinger is a hopeless hypocrite.




Look here folks. rightwinger saying he was GUNG HO about Afghanistan in the beginning, yet he want to add his name to a list claiming Bush started two unwarranted wars.

He still probably thinks killing bin laden was going to end all terrorism. Wait, he thought terrorism was a bumper sticker myth put out by Boooooosh and republicans cause they really want oil over there. Wait a minute.......we have been there for 13 years, 6 of which have been under their liar in chief.

Their liar in chief increased the war. Oh right...I forgot. Rightwinger is a know it all who thinks he knows more than those who are privy to top secret intel. Of course he does. Meanwhile he was gung ho for the war, but still thinks both wars were UNWARRANTED.

Classic double talk people. I hope you are appreciating my efforts here.




Well here we are folks. More ignorance from someone who does not get what the war on terror is. He was gung ho, and here he is saying we should not have done anything after 911? We should have sent blew them kisses and say....thank you may I have another.

I am not sure what he is saying here. He did not want to get bin laden. Well, he is saying that was not worth it. Right?

Lets see, Pearl Harbor we lost over 2000 and how many did we lose in WWII in our war with Japan? Yes, he probably thinks that was not worth it either.

Just trying to keep up with liberal double talk and their pathetic hypocrisy.





Now here is saying he had no problem with military action in Afghanistan. Of course he shows his pure ignorance again along with his double talking hypocrisy in he thinks the war on terror was limited to bin laden and al qaeda.

Yet, folks he wants to add his name to the list that said Bush started both wars.

Funny aren't they?

Hope you all appreciate my efforts here. It is hard sifting through 28 pages of pure liberal bullshit.






Here we are folks, just a few posts later, rightwinger is claiming that he still thinks both wars were unwarranted even though he says he was gung ho about the Afghan one.

Yes folks, proof right here. They are all over the place, and shift from post to post. Yet they will deny they do it.

Wooooo weeee





rightwinger approved this post, even though he claimed he was gung ho about the war in afghan. I guess he is saying Bush started the war he was gung ho about.

Again folks.

They think the number of deaths should be a 1 to 1 ratio with the number of deaths al qaeda caused on 911. Because Bush caused more deaths than the 3000 killed on 911, it is unwarranted and unjust.

Again, that must mean our involvement in WWII was unwarranted too. Wait, I do not know.

Can anyone decipher what they stand for? Nothing, they stand for nothing and they are ignorant as fuck.

Have you always had reading comprehension problems or is it a recent phenomenon?

As I have said repeatedly in your thread, a military incursion into Afghanistan to get AlQaida was warranted. Just like a similar incursion into Pakistan or wherever they ran to would be warranted

But Bush, being Bush, tended to drift away from his stated purpose for invasion.
If his intent in Afghanistan was to get AlQaida, he quickly lost focus
If Bush had sold either Afghanistan or Iraq as an attempt to nation build in our image neither would have been deemed warranted by the American people....but that is what we got

So in looking back over the last 13 years...were the two wars warranted?
I would say no....So would most Americans

 

[Seawytch]

They think the number of deaths should be a 1 to 1 ratio with the number of deaths al qaeda caused on 911. Because Bush caused more deaths than the 3000 killed on 911, it is unwarranted and unjust.

Again, that must mean our involvement in WWII was unwarranted too. Wait, I do not know.

Can anyone decipher what they stand for? Nothing, they stand for nothing and they are ignorant as fuck.

Revenge shouldn't be the motivation for any war. That's basically ridiculous.

And no nation attacked us, directly. If you want to get into "indirectly" the two actors on this page were Afghanistan (Who were basically clueless about what happened) and Saudi Arabia (Who financed the operation and okayed the operation).

Afghanistan was basically hosting terrorist camps for money. They didn't know or care why they were there. Most of the Taliban knew nothing about 9/11 and when the US invaded? They thought they were fighting Soviets again. Some of them still do.

Afghanistan should have been a very limited operation. The goals being:

1. Wipe out the terrorist camps.
2. Decapitate the Al Qaeda leadership.

It was simple enough and nearly got done.

But that wasn't the Bush agenda. The Bush agenda was to attack Iraq. He was saying he wanted to do that before he became President..and when he found a reason?

He did it.

And the consequences were enormous.

More nonsensical bullshit from an asshole pathetic left wing pig.

It is not about "revenge" necessarily. They declared WAR you fucking hack!

When Japan attacked Pearl Harbor...they killed less than 3000.

Never mind you piece of unreal shit. You fucking people are so fucking ignorant AND pathetic.

FUCK YOU!

The last actual declaration of war was June 5, 1942.

But keep being really wrong in an idiotically vulgar way. It truly bolsters your "argument".

 

[Sallow]

He only started one "war of choice." Afghanistan was a necessity. It had to be fought. Iraq was a huge blunder that we will pay for, for generations to come.

I disagree that Afghanistan "had to be fought". That's not how we actually ended up getting Osama bin Laden, by "fighting". Both were wars of choice...we just needed some sort of revenge after 9/11.

I would disagree there.

Wiping out the camps in Afghanistan was critical.

For two purposes.

First it shows that the US would not let terrorist attacks go unanswered.
Second it eliminates a safe haven.

On the second part, that should have been coupled with incentives to the Taliban to let them back in.

If this were a strictly limited operation with very clear cut goals, we'd be having a different conversation about George W. Bush.

 

[Seawytch]

He only started one "war of choice." Afghanistan was a necessity. It had to be fought. Iraq was a huge blunder that we will pay for, for generations to come.

I disagree that Afghanistan "had to be fought". That's not how we actually ended up getting Osama bin Laden, by "fighting". Both were wars of choice...we just needed some sort of revenge after 9/11.

I would disagree there.

Wiping out the camps in Afghanistan was critical.

For two purposes.

First it shows that the US would not let terrorist attacks go unanswered.
Second it eliminates a safe haven.

On the second part, that should have been coupled with incentives to the Taliban to let them back in.

If this were a strictly limited operation with very clear cut goals, we'd be having a different conversation about George W. Bush.

Which could have been accomplished without full scale military action...like how we got Bin Laden and have been fighting terrorism. You can't declare war on an ideology.

 

[TheJedi]

I just want Jedi and Dicombob and Sallow to say it.. Tell us that we should kept the Iraqis locked up with a madman while we bombed them daily and took away their economy.. OR do the right thing and let him out of containment. Either choice... THEN we can chat about what Booooosh decided to do to change an awful policy that would have hindered our efforts in Afghan anyway with YOUR preferred choices..

Thats the honesty required to resolve this issue of how we got here.

Can you clarify this? It is somewhat unintelligible.

 

[Sallow]

I disagree that Afghanistan "had to be fought". That's not how we actually ended up getting Osama bin Laden, by "fighting". Both were wars of choice...we just needed some sort of revenge after 9/11.

I would disagree there.

Wiping out the camps in Afghanistan was critical.

For two purposes.

First it shows that the US would not let terrorist attacks go unanswered.
Second it eliminates a safe haven.

On the second part, that should have been coupled with incentives to the Taliban to let them back in.

If this were a strictly limited operation with very clear cut goals, we'd be having a different conversation about George W. Bush.

Which could have been accomplished without full scale military action...like how we got Bin Laden and have been fighting terrorism. You can't declare war on an ideology.

Personally? I don't think so.

It would have been incredibly hard and dangerous using covert ops. Think Bay of Pigs.

Bush actually did this the right way.

He went to the Taliban, gave them a time table and they actually screwed that up.

Had Bush kept the mission limited? He would be celebrated now.

The war in Afghanistan was over in weeks and the loss of life was very minimal.

 

[Discombobulated]

Oh now there's a HUGE cop-out.. You won't actually SAY that we should have continued to bomb Iraq daily and keep it's economy on lockdown. OR -- let Saddam OUT of containment. Did you have ANOTHER PLAN? One that didn't involve another 12 years of guard duty and keeping the Euros from restoring relations with him?

You just want to blame the guy that DID SOMETHING to end the bad policy. Or ignore the bad policy entirely. Which is it ??

I have yet to this day to get a SINGLE critic of the Iraq War to admit that the alternatives included some pretty piss poor choices like letting him out of containment because the WMD charges were fraudulent. Or to justify another 12 years of locking up their economy, destroying their infrastructure and denying them food and medicine.

ANY Bush Bashers got the guts to acknowledge that? To acknowledge that the Euros were done with the embargo and we were the only ones crazy enough to keep Saddam in containment?

So the solution is to compound a bad policy with an even worse policy. I'm sure that makes perfect sense if you don't think about it.

Is that your answer to his question? Posing another question? I was kinda hoping you had a better solution to prove your point. But I guess not.

Here's another try at it.....since you are so sure that we were wrong about Iraq, what SHOULD have been done? And what would have happened as a result of us doing whatever you can come up with?

Wait...let me get a drink....cuz this should be pretty fuggin good....................

Ok...go.

You apparently haven't been paying attention. As already stated, there was no immediate imperative to do anything at all about Iraq. You seem a little slow on the uptake, try to keep up.

 

[TheJedi]

I just want Jedi and Dicombob and Sallow to say it.. Tell us that we should kept the Iraqis locked up with a madman while we bombed them daily and took away their economy.. OR do the right thing and let him out of containment. Either choice... THEN we can chat about what Booooosh decided to do to change an awful policy that would have hindered our efforts in Afghan anyway with YOUR preferred choices..

Thats the honesty required to resolve this issue of how we got here.

None of which constituted an imminent threat to our security, there was no compelling reason to make any choice or decide to do anything at all about Iraq. You present false choices.

Oh now there's a HUGE cop-out.. You won't actually SAY that we should have continued to bomb Iraq daily and keep it's economy on lockdown. OR -- let Saddam OUT of containment. Did you have ANOTHER PLAN? One that didn't involve another 12 years of guard duty and keeping the Euros from restoring relations with him?

You just want to blame the guy that DID SOMETHING to end the bad policy. Or ignore the bad policy entirely. Which is it ??

I have yet to this day to get a SINGLE critic of the Iraq War to admit that the alternatives included some pretty piss poor choices like letting him out of containment because the WMD charges were fraudulent. Or to justify another 12 years of locking up their economy, destroying their infrastructure and denying them food and medicine.

ANY Bush Bashers got the guts to acknowledge that? To acknowledge that the Euros were done with the embargo and we were the only ones crazy enough to keep Saddam in containment?

OK. I think I am starting get where you are going. We should have NEVER gone into Iraq but once we went in, we had no choice but to take Saddam down because he would have most likely retaliated by supporting Islamic militant groups. Had we NOT gone into that country, Saddam, for all his murderous ways, was wise enough to know he was beat and he would lose his country if he did support Al-Quaeda. We brushed his military off like a fly on our shoulder in Desert Storm and he knew we were watching him.

I would never support a scumbag like Saddam. I do however support rationality and the truth. The truth is that Saddam was never a threat. He was happy, raping, pillaging and torturing his own people to keep order and he lived like a King. Rationally speaking, that was an Iraqi problem. Not an American problem and not even an international problem. Saddam knew his place and he stayed there. He was basically the Kim Jong Un on the Middle East.

Bush and Cheney were already planning to make a case to go into Iraq before 9/11. This started almost as soon as Bush took office.....this is fact. They never would have been able to make the case if it weren't for the 9/11 attacks which pretty put the country in "kill all mulsims and bomb the middle east" mode so we were ready to believe anything we were told that would have justified it. I bought into it too which is why these days I am all about skepticism and fact-finding because I will never be duped like that again.

 

[Kosh]

I would disagree there.

Wiping out the camps in Afghanistan was critical.

For two purposes.

First it shows that the US would not let terrorist attacks go unanswered.
Second it eliminates a safe haven.

On the second part, that should have been coupled with incentives to the Taliban to let them back in.

If this were a strictly limited operation with very clear cut goals, we'd be having a different conversation about George W. Bush.

Which could have been accomplished without full scale military action...like how we got Bin Laden and have been fighting terrorism. You can't declare war on an ideology.

Personally? I don't think so.

It would have been incredibly hard and dangerous using covert ops. Think Bay of Pigs.

Bush actually did this the right way.

He went to the Taliban, gave them a time table and they actually screwed that up.

Had Bush kept the mission limited? He would be celebrated now.

The war in Afghanistan was over in weeks and the loss of life was very minimal.

More proof that the far left is not capable of operating in reality and should not be in charge of anything.

 

[Theowl32]

Lol they still claim Bush started two unwarranted wars.

Truthers.