Follow along with the video below to see how to install our site as a web app on your home screen.
Note: This feature may not be available in some browsers.
It was to get rid of Saddam and open the oil taps once again. Both were accomplished with relatively few casualties to US armed forces. Reagan on the other hand was far more successful. He helped topple communism with ZERO casualties!So? Is Saddam Hussein still running Iraq? Do you find it necessary, or even constructive for your argument to come up with convoluted stats, as those in bold?Saddam was captured 9 months after the war in Iraq began. The war began 20 March 2003 and Saddam was captured 21 December 2003. Casaulties at the time of his capture stood at coaoition (not including US) 88 KIA and 486 US KIA. US KIA's increased by another 4,000 and and coalition KIA's increased another 230 after his capture. The loss of the additional 4,000 American KIA's and 230 allies had nothing to do with getting rid of Saddam or WMD's. Saddam was dead by the end of 2003 and the entire country had been fully searched for WMD's.
The point is often made and claimed to be that the war in Iraq was for the purpose of finding WMD's. Whether due to bad intelligence or whatever, without arguing the merits of that reason, it was put to rest in less than a year at a point in the war where some number less than 500 American military personel had given their lives to accomplish the mission of clearing Iraq of any WMD's. The same can be said for the reason given in regards to ridding Iraq of Saddam.
It would seem fair and reasonable to point out that the war that followed the insuring of the clearing of WMD's and the capture of Saddam was waged for some other reasons. Folks who defend the Bush/Cheney/Rumfield neocon war should be able to explain what the war after 2003 was for. Seems reasonable.
It was to get rid of Saddam and open the oil taps once again. Both were accomplished with relatively few casualties to US armed forces. Reagan on the other hand was far more successful. He helped topple communism with ZERO casualties!So? Is Saddam Hussein still running Iraq? Do you find it necessary, or even constructive for your argument to come up with convoluted stats, as those in bold?
The point is often made and claimed to be that the war in Iraq was for the purpose of finding WMD's. Whether due to bad intelligence or whatever, without arguing the merits of that reason, it was put to rest in less than a year at a point in the war where some number less than 500 American military personel had given their lives to accomplish the mission of clearing Iraq of any WMD's. The same can be said for the reason given in regards to ridding Iraq of Saddam.
It would seem fair and reasonable to point out that the war that followed the insuring of the clearing of WMD's and the capture of Saddam was waged for some other reasons. Folks who defend the Bush/Cheney/Rumfield neocon war should be able to explain what the war after 2003 was for. Seems reasonable.
.
As for Romney? He simply called Obama and Clinton out for what they had done in Benghazi...pointing out correctly that it wasn't a protest but a planned terrorist attack and that Obama, Clinton, Rice and Carney all lied to the country when they pushed the You Tube video story for weeks after they KNEW there was no protest before the attack took place! The fact that Candy Crowley rushed to Barry's defense in the debate simply illustrates how biased in Obama's favor the main stream media WAS during the race!
the sheople like trollsytyle,only see what they WANT to see. i would say from here on out,everyone of them will belinked to the CIA.Just look at the at the past four presidents as proof.1.Bush sr-former director of the CIA. 2.Bushs long time pal and friend Clinton.also has been exposed as a CIA asset.3.Bush jr.son of a former CIA director,that should be a red flag right there he doesnt have the american peoples interest at heart.4.Obama-reseachers have exposed him as being an asset to the CIA working for them in the pas as did Clinton.I didn't realise you were as ignorant as your friend 9/11. I suppose you will believe that Bush ordered the attack.I'm still amused that you still hold Bush blameless for 9/11 or the 4500 men who died for nothing in Iraq, but darn it, these four deaths in Libya, these are the WORST THING EVER.
We know that the Iraq War toppled one of your heroes, but a lot of people think this was a good thing. Get over it.
Actually, a lot of people think pretty much the oppossite.
The public soured on Iraq years ago but is now similarly downbeat about the war in Afghanistan, which President Obama once portrayed as the more worthwhile conflict. Some 58 percent of the poll's respondents say Iraq was not worth the fight; 56 percent say so about Afghanistan.
he''ll just claim those are made up facts by your of course or soemthing liek that and call YOU the ignorant one.It was to get rid of Saddam and open the oil taps once again. Both were accomplished with relatively few casualties to US armed forces. Reagan on the other hand was far more successful. He helped topple communism with ZERO casualties!The point is often made and claimed to be that the war in Iraq was for the purpose of finding WMD's. Whether due to bad intelligence or whatever, without arguing the merits of that reason, it was put to rest in less than a year at a point in the war where some number less than 500 American military personel had given their lives to accomplish the mission of clearing Iraq of any WMD's. The same can be said for the reason given in regards to ridding Iraq of Saddam.
It would seem fair and reasonable to point out that the war that followed the insuring of the clearing of WMD's and the capture of Saddam was waged for some other reasons. Folks who defend the Bush/Cheney/Rumfield neocon war should be able to explain what the war after 2003 was for. Seems reasonable.
As has been pointed out, Saddam was gotten rid of less than a year after the war occured when the casaulty count was at 486 US KIA's. Sounds like the additional 4,000 KIA's were worth it because the "oil taps got turned on once again". And 4,000 KIA's in your head are "relatively few causaulties". The Chinese thank your support for sacrificing American lives so they can reap the benifits of the "turned on taps". You know they get 80% of the oil Iraq sells, right.
About that Reagan accomplishing the defeat of the USSR with zero casaulties, that kind of assumes you don't count the over 100,000 who gave their lives in Korea and Vietnam and all the "Cold War KIA's" not included in the Korea and Vietnam numbers. I know you will want to point out that all those dead Americans fighting the commies died before Reagan became President, but the USSR was still standing for years after Reagan left office. Maybe Reagan didn't have that much to do with the so called fall of the USSR?
constantly comong back here everyday for constant ass beatings on all of this.
.
As for Romney? He simply called Obama and Clinton out for what they had done in Benghazi...pointing out correctly that it wasn't a protest but a planned terrorist attack and that Obama, Clinton, Rice and Carney all lied to the country when they pushed the You Tube video story for weeks after they KNEW there was no protest before the attack took place! The fact that Candy Crowley rushed to Barry's defense in the debate simply illustrates how biased in Obama's favor the main stream media WAS during the race!
You can call them "al Qaeda" all day, but interviews with people who where there said they wre upset about the video.
Just like everyone else in the Islamic World was.
But you guys keep going with this narrative that Obama is to blame and not the people who attacked the embassy, because honestly, when you suffer ODS to the level you do, you need to blame Obama for everything.
I'm still amused that you still hold Bush blameless for 9/11 or the 4500 men who died for nothing in Iraq, but darn it, these four deaths in Libya, these are the WORST THING EVER.
the sheople like trollsytyle,only see what they WANT to see. i would say from here on out,everyone of them will belinked to the CIA.Just look at the at the past four presidents as proof.1.Bush sr-former director of the CIA. 2.Bushs long time pal and friend Clinton.also has been exposed as a CIA asset.3.Bush jr.son of a former CIA director,that should be a red flag right there he doesnt have the american peoples interest at heart.4.Obama-reseachers have exposed him as being an asset to the CIA working for them in the pas as did Clinton.
[qu]A lot of people think overthrowing Saddam was a bad thing?! Joe, I know you do. I also know you hate Reagan for his significant contribution to the demise of the Soviet Union. You side with Putin here, but few would agree.
Coolidge had a Republican Congress, Reagan had a Democrat Congress.
See the difference?
Coolidge had a Republican Congress, Reagan had a Democrat Congress.
See the difference?
And less than a year after he left office, the world economy collaped, much of the world turned to totalitarianism, and the Democratic Party pretty much swept the GOP out of existence for a generation.
[qu]A lot of people think overthrowing Saddam was a bad thing?! Joe, I know you do. I also know you hate Reagan for his significant contribution to the demise of the Soviet Union. You side with Putin here, but few would agree.
Okay, guy first, reagan had nothing to do with the end of the USSR. Only really stupid people think he did. You won't find one historian outside a "talking snake" univerity that claims otherwise.
Second, a lot of people look at the Iraq War not as "Saddam was a bad man", but what did getting rid of him cost us vs. what did we gain.
It cost us nearly a trillion dollars, 5000 dead, 30,000 wounded, and the respect of most of the world.
Our gains? Well, we had to pull out because the only thing the various tribes of Iraq agreed upon was how much they hated us. The Sunni Triangle is now a nest of Al Qaeda and the government in Baghdad is friendly to Iran.
Not worth it.
remember you are trying to reason with someone on crack who is appropriaelty called MEATHEAD.you're not going to get anywhere,hense best thing to do with him is what i did several months ago,use the ignore list since that whats he does,ignores facts,Coolidge had a Republican Congress, Reagan had a Democrat Congress.
See the difference?
And less than a year after he left office, the world economy collaped, much of the world turned to totalitarianism, and the Democratic Party pretty much swept the GOP out of existence for a generation.
Coolidge had a Republican Congress, Reagan had a Democrat Congress.
See the difference?
And less than a year after he left office, the world economy collaped, much of the world turned to totalitarianism, and the Democratic Party pretty much swept the GOP out of existence for a generation.
pesky facts like that are a little too complicated for crusader retard to comprehend.
Coolidge had a Republican Congress, Reagan had a Democrat Congress.
See the difference?
And less than a year after he left office, the world economy collaped, much of the world turned to totalitarianism, and the Democratic Party pretty much swept the GOP out of existence for a generation.
JosefBStalin which Coolidge policy caused the collapse
Sent from smartphone using my wits and Taptalk
And less than a year after he left office, the world economy collaped, much of the world turned to totalitarianism, and the Democratic Party pretty much swept the GOP out of existence for a generation.
JosefBStalin which Coolidge policy caused the collapse
Sent from smartphone using my wits and Taptalk
Lack of regulation of the banking industry.
Guy, this is basic fucking history...
But frankly, I'm starting to suspect you are clinically retarded.
JosefBStalin which Coolidge policy caused the collapse
Sent from smartphone using my wits and Taptalk
Lack of regulation of the banking industry.
Guy, this is basic fucking history...
But frankly, I'm starting to suspect you are clinically retarded.
ROFL says the mentally handicapped Marxist.
[qu]A lot of people think overthrowing Saddam was a bad thing?! Joe, I know you do. I also know you hate Reagan for his significant contribution to the demise of the Soviet Union. You side with Putin here, but few would agree.
Okay, guy first, reagan had nothing to do with the end of the USSR. Only really stupid people think he did. You won't find one historian outside a "talking snake" univerity that claims otherwise.
Second, a lot of people look at the Iraq War not as "Saddam was a bad man", but what did getting rid of him cost us vs. what did we gain.
It cost us nearly a trillion dollars, 5000 dead, 30,000 wounded, and the respect of most of the world.
Our gains? Well, we had to pull out because the only thing the various tribes of Iraq agreed upon was how much they hated us. The Sunni Triangle is now a nest of Al Qaeda and the government in Baghdad is friendly to Iran.
Not worth it.
Coolidge had a Republican Congress, Reagan had a Democrat Congress.
See the difference?
And less than a year after he left office, the world economy collaped, much of the world turned to totalitarianism, and the Democratic Party pretty much swept the GOP out of existence for a generation.
pesky facts like that are a little too complicated for crusader retard to comprehend.
And less than a year after he left office, the world economy collaped, much of the world turned to totalitarianism, and the Democratic Party pretty much swept the GOP out of existence for a generation.
JosefBStalin which Coolidge policy caused the collapse
Sent from smartphone using my wits and Taptalk
Lack of regulation of the banking industry.
Guy, this is basic fucking history...
But frankly, I'm starting to suspect you are clinically retarded.
