So now, BUSH caused ISIS?

[JoeB131]

Actually, Zionism was born out of "My Sky Fairy Promised me this Land" and stealing it from the people who it rightfully belongs to. Oddly, they are still pissed, 70 years later.

So the entire history of land and who owns it began in 1948?

The land "rightfully belongs" to the Jewish people who lived their over 3,000 years ago. "Sky Fairy Promises" or not, they have vehemently defended their homeland time and time again. Since no one alive today is 3,000 years old, no one has any legitimate claim to the land other than the Jews. Now, it has been forcibly taken away from them by the Romans, the Egyptians, the Persians, the Ottomans, the Germans... you name it. But it has always been their land and will always be their land.

Whenever you see someone use the word "Zionist" you can pretty much rest assured they are a Jew-hater.

They stole it 3,000 years ago too!

Num 13: 17 And Moses sent them to spy out the land of Canaan, and said unto them, Get you up this way southward, and go up into the mountain:

18 And see the land, what it is; and the people that dwelleth therein, whether they be strong or weak, few or many;

19 And what the land is that they dwell in, whether it be good or bad; and what cities they be that they dwell in, whether in tents, or in strong holds;

20 And what the land is, whether it be fat or lean, whether there be wood therein, or not. And be ye of good courage, and bring of the fruit of the land. Now the time was the time of the firstripe grapes.

21 So they went up, and searched the land from the wilderness of Zin unto Rehob, as men come to Hamath.

22 And they ascended by the south, and came unto Hebron; where Ahiman, Sheshai, and Talmai, the children of Anak, were. (Now Hebron was built seven years before Zoan in Egypt.)

23 And they came unto the brook of Eshcol, and cut down from thence a branch with one cluster of grapes, and they bare it between two upon a staff; and they brought of the pomegranates, and of the figs.

24 The place was called the brook Eshcol, because of the cluster of grapes which the children of Israel cut down from thence.

25 And they returned from searching of the land after forty days.

26 And they went and came to Moses, and to Aaron, and to all the congregation of the children of Israel, unto the wilderness of Paran, to Kadesh; and brought back word unto them, and unto all the congregation, and shewed them the fruit of the land.

27 And they told him, and said, We came unto the land whither thou sentest us, and surely it floweth with milk and honey; and this is the fruit of it.

28 Nevertheless the people be strong that dwell in the land, and the cities are walled, and very great: and moreover we saw the children of Anak there.

29 The Amalekites dwell in the land of the south: and the Hittites, and the Jebusites, and the Amorites, dwell in the mountains: and the Canaanites dwell by the sea, and by the coast of Jordan.

30 And Caleb stilled the people before Moses, and said, Let us go up at once, and possess it; for we are well able to overcome it.

Point well taken. The Old Testament is pretty much a "How To" manual for Genocide.

 

[Boss]

Boss 11602449

This whole sidebar argument started over MY point that Congress could have halted the Iraq War any time they felt so compelled and they did nothing.

How could Congress realistically stop the dumb war that Bush started? Bush told Congress in March 2003 that the reason for Americans dying in Iraq and Americans killing Iraqis was to find WMD that was alleged to be hidden from UN inspectors. It was almost two years of war before Bush admitted the WMD was not there. By then the "you broke It you bought it" rule kicked in and by then Al Qaeda moved into Iraq and the war to find WMD was over. By 2005 it became a war to keep terrorists from taking control of Iraq as well as trying to figure out how to bring Sunnis and Shiites and Kurds together to produce a viable government and a properly developed army and police force. Bush never figured the latter out but set the end of his entirely dumb war by the end of 2011.

Well congress could have simply stopped funding the war and the troops would have to come back home. Then Democrat leaders hold a vote on articles of impeachment for lying to Congress.

Your revisionist account of what went down is not impressing me because I was there, I remember exactly what went down. Bush gave an extensive list of reasons for the war which included WMD technology and potential weapons caches we didn't know about. Hans Blix, the chief weapons inspector for the UNs UNSCOM effort had already given his statement that it was virtually impossible for the inspectors to ensure Saddam's compliance with UN resolutions. So Bush's argument for the war was WAY more than just WMDs and the argument was presented at the time... you just weren't listening to it. Your political cabal latched onto "WMDs" and that's all you heard.

Again... Bush was actually following the 1998 plan established by congress and signed by Clinton, to replace Saddam with democracy. In the hopes that planting democracy over there would eventually help to defeat radical Islam. Defeating an ideology with a better ideology through hearts and minds as opposed to guns and bayonets.

The drawback to the plan is that many radical Islamist followers don't like it too much! They don't want their ideology defeated! So they are trying everything possible to destroy our plan and of course, along with liberal democrats and the Obama administration, they are doing a bang-up job of that!

Cut off funds for troops while they're in battle?? What kind of American-hating fucking traitor are you?? Who the fuck cuts funding for troops while they're in battle?

Well if they are in battle in an illegitimate war the president lied us into, I'd think it would be the patriotic thing to bring them back home before someone gets hurt. You see... you're wanting to turn the coin over now and try to argue the war was legitimate and troops were legitimately there. You can't have it both ways.

What this boils down to is you people are full of shit and you know you are. You'll just keep repeating the same mindless memes and rhetoric to the brain-dead koolaid crowd and the rest of us will simply dismiss you as idiots and morons who can't see through simple propaganda.

 

[Faun]

Boss 11602449

This whole sidebar argument started over MY point that Congress could have halted the Iraq War any time they felt so compelled and they did nothing.

How could Congress realistically stop the dumb war that Bush started? Bush told Congress in March 2003 that the reason for Americans dying in Iraq and Americans killing Iraqis was to find WMD that was alleged to be hidden from UN inspectors. It was almost two years of war before Bush admitted the WMD was not there. By then the "you broke It you bought it" rule kicked in and by then Al Qaeda moved into Iraq and the war to find WMD was over. By 2005 it became a war to keep terrorists from taking control of Iraq as well as trying to figure out how to bring Sunnis and Shiites and Kurds together to produce a viable government and a properly developed army and police force. Bush never figured the latter out but set the end of his entirely dumb war by the end of 2011.

Well congress could have simply stopped funding the war and the troops would have to come back home. Then Democrat leaders hold a vote on articles of impeachment for lying to Congress.

Your revisionist account of what went down is not impressing me because I was there, I remember exactly what went down. Bush gave an extensive list of reasons for the war which included WMD technology and potential weapons caches we didn't know about. Hans Blix, the chief weapons inspector for the UNs UNSCOM effort had already given his statement that it was virtually impossible for the inspectors to ensure Saddam's compliance with UN resolutions. So Bush's argument for the war was WAY more than just WMDs and the argument was presented at the time... you just weren't listening to it. Your political cabal latched onto "WMDs" and that's all you heard.

Again... Bush was actually following the 1998 plan established by congress and signed by Clinton, to replace Saddam with democracy. In the hopes that planting democracy over there would eventually help to defeat radical Islam. Defeating an ideology with a better ideology through hearts and minds as opposed to guns and bayonets.

The drawback to the plan is that many radical Islamist followers don't like it too much! They don't want their ideology defeated! So they are trying everything possible to destroy our plan and of course, along with liberal democrats and the Obama administration, they are doing a bang-up job of that!

Cut off funds for troops while they're in battle?? What kind of American-hating fucking traitor are you?? Who the fuck cuts funding for troops while they're in battle?

Well if they are in battle in an illegitimate war the president lied us into, I'd think it would be the patriotic thing to bring them back home before someone gets hurt. You see... you're wanting to turn the coin over now and try to argue the war was legitimate and troops were legitimately there. You can't have it both ways.

What this boils down to is you people are full of shit and you know you are. You'll just keep repeating the same mindless memes and rhetoric to the brain-dead koolaid crowd and the rest of us will simply dismiss you as idiots and morons who can't see through simple propaganda.

Why do you hate our military?

Cutting their funds doesn't mean the president will necessarily bring them home. All it does is reduce their support and increase their risk.

And when are you going to man up and admit you're an imbecile for claiming the Congress can send troops into war? You proved they are not authorized to do that when you posted relevant parts of the Constitution.

 

[Boss]

Boss 11517170

Where are the WMDs? Well it turns out they were in Syria, where Saddam's WMD technology is currently being deployed. Actual chem/bio weapons have short shelf life, but the technology is what was important and it all went to Syria.

If the "technology" went to Syria and "technology" is the important threat that needed to be eliminated by a massive military invasion in March 2003 into Iraq, why did Bush invade Iraq instead of Syria?

Then why did Bush tell us on March 17, 2003 that he had intelligence that left no doubt that Iraq was hiding the most lethal weapons ever devised from the 2003 UN inspectors, if it was only technology that Bush was looking for.

I didn't say it was only technology Bush was looking for. Bush didn't know what Iraq's capabilities were, none of us did... that was the point. For all we knew, he could've had a secret nuke program... fucker buried fighter jets in the sand to hide them. The "WMD" threat was not necessarily concerning stockpiles because chem/bio has such a relatively short shelf life it's kind of stupid to make stockpiles... unless you're planning to use them.

The objective in Iraq had nothing to do with chasing WMD materials around, that's why Bush didn't invade Syria... it wasn't the issue. Saddam was a dangerous threat, a loose cannon, a liability waiting to happen. He repeatedly failed to cooperate with the UN, ignored the resolutions, thumbed his nose at us and the rest of the civilized world and we took his ass out.

 

[Boss]

Why do you hate our military?

Cutting their funds doesn't mean the president will necessarily bring them home. All it does is reduce their support and increase their risk.

And when are you going to man up and admit you're an imbecile for claiming the Congress can send troops into war? You proved they are not authorized to do that when you posted relevant parts of the Constitution.

What the fuck do you mean "hate our military?" Let's be perfectly clear, smart ass... I don't EVER want a single American soldier to die because a president lied us into an illegitimate war! If that WAS the case, which is what you are claiming, then the Congress should have been compelled... no, OBLIGATED to bring those soldiers home ASAP before anyone is harmed in this debacle that should have never been. But that didn't happen and you claim it's somehow "patriotic" to have our soldiers die in an illegitimate war they shouldn't be in.

As for the Constitution and war powers, we've covered it. I still say you're an idiot who wants to play cute little imaginary semantics games. Congress, and ONLY Congress, has the authority to declare war. If you can cite an example where they have declared a war and the president refused to send troops, be my guest... I'm interested to hear how often this has happened in history because I don't think it ever has or ever would. It's just silliness on your part to argue that.

Now, I don't need to be goofy and silly, I've got better things to do. Like kicking liberal ass up one side of this thread and down the other. So when you decide to stop being silly and start arguing the merits of the thread, then your ass kicking will continue as normal. I'm going to ignore your attempts to be a troll because, like everything else you attempt, you're not very good at it.

 

[Boss]

Cutting their funds doesn't mean the president will necessarily bring them home.

Well they're going to have a hard time staying without funding. In fact, if a president was negligent in bringing the troops home after Congress repealed the use of force and de-funded the efforts, he could be brought up on articles of impeachment. That is a high crime because only Congress has the authority to declare war. The president can't just do whatever the hell he pleases... I know Obama thinks so, but that's not the powers delegated in the Constitution.

 

[Faun]

Why do you hate our military?

Cutting their funds doesn't mean the president will necessarily bring them home. All it does is reduce their support and increase their risk.

And when are you going to man up and admit you're an imbecile for claiming the Congress can send troops into war? You proved they are not authorized to do that when you posted relevant parts of the Constitution.

What the fuck do you mean "hate our military?" Let's be perfectly clear, smart ass... I don't EVER want a single American soldier to die because a president lied us into an illegitimate war! If that WAS the case, which is what you are claiming, then the Congress should have been compelled... no, OBLIGATED to bring those soldiers home ASAP before anyone is harmed in this debacle that should have never been. But that didn't happen and you claim it's somehow "patriotic" to have our soldiers die in an illegitimate war they shouldn't be in.

As for the Constitution and war powers, we've covered it. I still say you're an idiot who wants to play cute little imaginary semantics games. Congress, and ONLY Congress, has the authority to declare war. If you can cite an example where they have declared a war and the president refused to send troops, be my guest... I'm interested to hear how often this has happened in history because I don't think it ever has or ever would. It's just silliness on your part to argue that.

Now, I don't need to be goofy and silly, I've got better things to do. Like kicking liberal ass up one side of this thread and down the other. So when you decide to stop being silly and start arguing the merits of the thread, then your ass kicking will continue as normal. I'm going to ignore your attempts to be a troll because, like everything else you attempt, you're not very good at it.

Holyfuckingshit!

You just doubled down on stupid. No, moron, Congress cannot bring the troops home. How can you be so fucking rightarded?? You earlier quoted the Constitution yet you clearly don't understand it. Congress cannot send troops into war. Congress cannot withdraw troops out of war.

And despite your concession now that Congress declares war, that was not your original claim. Your original claim, which I took you to task over, is that Congress can send troops into war.

They can't ... that's been proven ... yet you're not man enough to own your mistake and admit you have no clue what you're talking about.

 

[Faun]

Cutting their funds doesn't mean the president will necessarily bring them home.

Well they're going to have a hard time staying without funding. In fact, if a president was negligent in bringing the troops home after Congress repealed the use of force and de-funded the efforts, he could be brought up on articles of impeachment. That is a high crime because only Congress has the authority to declare war. The president can't just do whatever the hell he pleases... I know Obama thinks so, but that's not the powers delegated in the Constitution.

Why do you hate the military so much that you would cut off their support and increase their risk? Cutting their funding doesn't automatically translate into the president withdrawing any troops. Impeacing the president takes time and increases the troops' risk during that process. And even if the impeachment is successful.in removing the president, that only promotes the VP to Commander-in-Chief and still doesn't mean the troops are coming home.

You're a fucking traitor to America.

 

[Boss]

Why do you hate our military?

Cutting their funds doesn't mean the president will necessarily bring them home. All it does is reduce their support and increase their risk.

And when are you going to man up and admit you're an imbecile for claiming the Congress can send troops into war? You proved they are not authorized to do that when you posted relevant parts of the Constitution.

What the fuck do you mean "hate our military?" Let's be perfectly clear, smart ass... I don't EVER want a single American soldier to die because a president lied us into an illegitimate war! If that WAS the case, which is what you are claiming, then the Congress should have been compelled... no, OBLIGATED to bring those soldiers home ASAP before anyone is harmed in this debacle that should have never been. But that didn't happen and you claim it's somehow "patriotic" to have our soldiers die in an illegitimate war they shouldn't be in.

As for the Constitution and war powers, we've covered it. I still say you're an idiot who wants to play cute little imaginary semantics games. Congress, and ONLY Congress, has the authority to declare war. If you can cite an example where they have declared a war and the president refused to send troops, be my guest... I'm interested to hear how often this has happened in history because I don't think it ever has or ever would. It's just silliness on your part to argue that.

Now, I don't need to be goofy and silly, I've got better things to do. Like kicking liberal ass up one side of this thread and down the other. So when you decide to stop being silly and start arguing the merits of the thread, then your ass kicking will continue as normal. I'm going to ignore your attempts to be a troll because, like everything else you attempt, you're not very good at it.

Holyfuckingshit!

You just doubled down on stupid. No, moron, Congress cannot bring the troops home. How can you be so fucking rightarded?? You earlier quoted the Constitution yet you clearly don't understand it. Congress cannot send troops into war. Congress cannot withdraw troops out of war.

And despite your concession now that Congress declares war, that was not your original claim. Your original claim, which I took you to task over, is that Congress can send troops into war.

They can't ... that's been proven ... yet you're not man enough to own your mistake and admit you have no clue what you're talking about.

"Congress cannot send troops into war. Congress cannot withdraw troops out of war."

You can keep being silly all you like... effectively, they CAN! Now... perhaps at the Liberal Utopian Institute of Constitutional Law they taught you otherwise but it's an irrelevant semantics trick and not evidenced by reality happening in the real universe. You cannot "send" or "keep" troops anywhere without funding which Congress has full control of. Yes, the president as CinC makes decisions on deployment, troop size, etc., AFTER Congress has authorized use of military force like they did for Bush in Iraq.

One of the reasons I prefer American representative Constitutional democracy is because the power to wage wars is not vested in one man. There are checks and balances. The president does not have the authority to do this by himself. Unlike your preference of tyranny and despotism where the ruler decides who to invade and if you don't agree they put a bullet in your head.

 

[MaryL]

Iraq posed less threat than North Korea. (we all know how well that went, Nukes, ICBM's, stuff like that). Saddam was forced to destroy his WMD's back in the early 1990's. What bother me is the contradictions of the original post, along the same lines if old Vietnam war area slogan, "We had to destroy the village to save it". Iraq posed no real threat, no direct connection to terrorist, and no WMDs. Is there any doubt that we would have been better off with Saddam in power? And the takeaway from that is YES, BUSH'S war backfired and created a breeding ground for the very thing we where trying to end.

 

[Darkwind]

Darkw 11595161

The only false claims being made about Iraq come from the radicalized left. They feel compelled to lie about events and assign motives to people to justify their cowardice.

I challenged a specific claim you just made about what Bush supposedly predicted about Iraq. You have provided no specific false claim from the so called radical left. Do you have a person in mind and a false claim about Iraq that is a bit more specific than the rubbish you just tossed out.

But if you can't even attempt to defend what you claimed Bush43 predicted then we all left right and center can see that you certainly must know that what you wrote cannot be verified with an actual quote.

That means in this forum you are the one who put up a false claim, so according to your recent claim yo must be representing the radical left.

Why not just admit you were wrong?

And why did you avoid my question about Bush wanting Tony Blair to invade Iraq with him?

I'm getting tired of responding to this because noobs lack the necessary intelligence to search the forum or Internet for the information they seek.

Bush warned of ISIS in a speech in 2007. Without doubt, this information was given to our Cut and Run President Obama. So, for the nth time...



As I said. I'm tired of debating people who have already lost the argument but refuse to give up out of some kind of warped need to argue for arguments sake.

Too funny ... in 2007, Bush warns of the consequences of withdrawing our troops but then in 2008, agrees pull them all out.

No. He began the process. He didn't merely pull up the tent pegs and just get out. Unlike Obumbler, W understood the necessity of the status of forces agreements and the need for timing and staging.

Do you ever post honestly?

No. Clearly, you don't.

If that were true, explain why he didn't leave to status of forces agreement and departure dates open for the future administration to determine? Why did he make such a huge decision a month before he left office? Why didn't he just tell the Iraqi's go give an unlimited time frame or force them to negotiate with the new administration?

And Obama feels compelled to be limited to what Bush has done........never.

Not even a valid argument, let alone a sound one.

 

[Boss]

Cutting their funds doesn't mean the president will necessarily bring them home.

Well they're going to have a hard time staying without funding. In fact, if a president was negligent in bringing the troops home after Congress repealed the use of force and de-funded the efforts, he could be brought up on articles of impeachment. That is a high crime because only Congress has the authority to declare war. The president can't just do whatever the hell he pleases... I know Obama thinks so, but that's not the powers delegated in the Constitution.

Why do you hate the military so much that you would cut off their support and increase their risk? Cutting their funding doesn't automatically translate into the president withdrawing any troops. Impeacing the president takes time and increases the troops' risk during that process. And even if the impeachment is successful.in removing the president, that only promotes the VP to Commander-in-Chief and still doesn't mean the troops are coming home.

You're a fucking traitor to America.

I don't know why you want to keep saying I hate the military? Makes NO sense to me! This has to be the most convoluted put down in USMB history. You claim I "hate the military" because I don't support funding illegal and illegitimate military ventures that they never should have been sent on in the first place. I am NOT obligated to support funding the military to do anything they shouldn't be ordered to do. If they are engaged in an illegal and illegitimate war the president lied us into, they need to come home... immediately... posthaste! Not one more dime needs to be appropriated for anything other than their immediate transport home. That's a far cry from me "hating" the military!

Now you are arguing that they wouldn't be brought home if funding were cut, but you can't support that ridiculous argument with any sort of rational common sense. It just defies any kind of intelligent thinking. It has to be considered borderline retardation to have such a view. But that is what you've stated!

It takes literally millions of dollars to sustain any kind of military presence. Twisting semantics around and trying to find a way to liberally interpret the Constitution to fit your idiocy doesn't impress me. If there were no funding the troops would have to come home, there is no other option.

 

[Camp]

Darkw 11595161 I challenged a specific claim you just made about what Bush supposedly predicted about Iraq. You have provided no specific false claim from the so called radical left. Do you have a person in mind and a false claim about Iraq that is a bit more specific than the rubbish you just tossed out.

But if you can't even attempt to defend what you claimed Bush43 predicted then we all left right and center can see that you certainly must know that what you wrote cannot be verified with an actual quote.

That means in this forum you are the one who put up a false claim, so according to your recent claim yo must be representing the radical left.

Why not just admit you were wrong?

And why did you avoid my question about Bush wanting Tony Blair to invade Iraq with him?

I'm getting tired of responding to this because noobs lack the necessary intelligence to search the forum or Internet for the information they seek.

Bush warned of ISIS in a speech in 2007. Without doubt, this information was given to our Cut and Run President Obama. So, for the nth time...



As I said. I'm tired of debating people who have already lost the argument but refuse to give up out of some kind of warped need to argue for arguments sake.

Too funny ... in 2007, Bush warns of the consequences of withdrawing our troops but then in 2008, agrees pull them all out.

No. He began the process. He didn't merely pull up the tent pegs and just get out. Unlike Obumbler, W understood the necessity of the status of forces agreements and the need for timing and staging.

Do you ever post honestly?

No. Clearly, you don't.

If that were true, explain why he didn't leave to status of forces agreement and departure dates open for the future administration to determine? Why did he make such a huge decision a month before he left office? Why didn't he just tell the Iraqi's go give an unlimited time frame or force them to negotiate with the new administration?

And Obama feels compelled to be limited to what Bush has done........never.

Not even a valid argument, let alone a sound one.

Are you suggesting Obama should have just ignored the agreement Bush agreed to and signed? It sounds like you are implying that a President is allowed to disregard the international agreement made by the previous President.

 

[thereisnospoon]

Well it's in two parts-- Article II Section 2:

The President shall be commander in chief of the Army and Navy of the United States, and of the militia of the several states.

And Article I Section 8:
[The Congress shall have power}
To declare war, grant letters of marque and reprisal, and make rules concerning captures on land and water;
To raise and support armies, ;
To provide and maintain a navy;
To make rules for the government and regulation of the land and naval forces;
To provide for calling forth the militia to execute the laws of the union, suppress insurrections and repel invasions;
To provide for organizing, arming, and disciplining, the militia, and for governing such part of them as may be employed in the service of the United States, reserving to the states respectively, the appointment of the officers, and the authority of training the militia according to the discipline prescribed by Congress;

It does not take a Constitutional scholar to see the president doesn't have the authority to "send troops to war" without express consent from Congress. It takes TWO keys to start the war machine. Now... technically, I suppose the president acting as CinC could order the military to go invade Switzerland and confiscate all their chocolate for Michelle... then just obfuscate, spin, lie and manipulate as long as possible while constitutional lawyers had cows... that could happen.. most likely in the liberal Utopian universe and not the normal one.

Now it's time to see if you're a man of character or the piece of shit I suspect you to be ....

You said: "Secondly, voters don't send anyone to war... Congress does that, and only Congress has that authority according to the Constitution."

I replied: "Congress has absolutely no Authority to send troops to war. .... The president is the designated the "Commander-in-Chief" of the non-militia federal armed forces, establishing him/her as the decider to send troops into war. Congress's role is to declare war and fund the military."

You shot back: "Nominated for dumbest thing a liberal has said so far today! Go read your fucking Constitution again, bucko!"

I pointed out: "Ok, I looked again. Nowhere in the Constitution does it authorize Congress to send troops to war. That is the role of the president. Congress can only declare war and fund the military."​

You then pulled out your pocket Constitution which agreed with me, not you. The Constitution says what I claim it says ... Congress declares war and funds the military. The president sends troops to war, not the Congress.

So let's see if you're man enough to admit you have no fucking clue what you're talking about, just as I said.......

"That is the role of the president. Congress can only declare war and fund the military."
Hair splitting at its worst..
You merely pointed out a distinction without a difference..
Genius...
The process as written works this way..
The President makes a decision to utilize military force. The President then must make a request to the Congress to authorize. Congress has the final say.

Tell that to the moron who calls himself, 'boss.' He's under the delusion that Congress can send troops into war.

YOU tell the OP.....because you are WRONG...

WTF? You too think Congress can send troops into war? Show me where the Constitution authorizes that......

I neither stated nor implied that at all......
READ!!!!!
POTUS makes a request to implement military action. Congress makes the decision to approve or deny.
There are exceptions.
Ever since you lefties appointed the Chosen One, you conveniently have forgotten the separation of powers and checks and balances.
If Obama were GOP, we would not be having this discussion.

 

[thereisnospoon]

Excuse me you repository for stupidity, as opposed to you, I don't have the luxury of spending every waking moment on USMB
You'll just have to wait for a response. That is if I believe your post worthy of one.
Just sit in the back of the class and wait your turn.

 

[thereisnospoon]

This is not a rhetorical question. Would really appreciate an answer. If you had 5 next door neighbors who have threatened your family, and suddenly they all start to kill each other What would YOU do?

I know that I would feed them, patch up their wounds, and send them back next door to finish the job. Zionists are not as stupid as the leaders we elect in this country...,,,

What I would do is move the fuck out of that neighborhood. Today. I would have done that the first time those five neighbors threatened to kill my family. In fact, I never would have moved into that neighborhood to start with.

What I wouldn't do is patch up the neighbor who is clearly mentally disturbed (ISIL) in order to get the neighbor who just talks smack.

The Zionists are far stupider than our leaders. The Zionists choose to live amongst people who want to kill them because a magic fairy in the sky promised them that land.

That's because you have no honor. No code. No guts.....
I suppose you'd walk away from your own home in the same instance.
Just admit that you hate Jews and get it over with.
For once in your little insignificant existence on this rock, show some honesty

so is it that he actually HATES jews. Or does he just use them to plaster over the failures and inconsistencies
of his own political clan.? Curious people want to know....

No he uses them and other groups, especially those with a little bit more wealth than Joe is comfortable with to plaster all over HIS failures and inconsistencies.

 

[thereisnospoon]

The 1998 Iraqi Liberation Act is a United States Congressional statement of policy calling for regime change in Iraq.[1][2] It was signed into law by President Bill Clinton, and states that it is the policy of the United States to support democratic movements within Iraq. The Act was cited in October 2002 to argue for the authorization of military force against the Iraqi government.

So clearly, this is official and legal US Foreign Policy on Iraq from 1998. The notion that Bush wanted Saddam removed to avenge Daddy are factually inaccurate. In other words, that is a LIE. It was already policy to remove Saddam. Also, the argument that Bush fucked up by removing a stable government under Saddam and attempting democracy is also factually inaccurate (aka: A Lie!) Again, it was official US Foreign Policy since 1998 to replace Saddam's regime with Democracy.

It was the policy to remove Saddam ONLY if his own people rose up against him, which they weren't.

Point is, we didn't go to war with Saddam to replace him, we went to war because he supposedly had WMD's he was going to give to Al Qaeda.

IN short. Bush Lied. People Died.

Oh please.....

 

[thereisnospoon]

Sorry, didn't notice this fool was still talking.

Sunni's are fucking Muslims, that's what Sunni IS... a sect of Islam. They are radicalized Muslims, no different than the scum who flew planes into our buildings on 9/11. They all want the same thing. They "didn't want to play" from the get-go, bud... they are AT WAR with us!

Yes, they all want the same thing. Unbelievers out of their country. What radicalized them was the fact we've been at war with them for 25 years.

As for the government in Iraq, no one ever thought establishing a stable democracy would be trouble-free. These people have never known democracy before. Of course they are going to have some problems, they will need some time to find their sea legs, we went through the very same thing in the beginning. These things take time and patience to see them through. That's something you and Obama, along with most of the left, simply have never had because you haven't wanted this from the start... just like the radical terrorists.

But that's NOT what Bush and company said. Bush said it would be "A Cake Walk" and "The war would pay for itself" and "The Iraqis would be throwing flowers at our feet!" and let's not forget "Mission Accomplished!" Your side has never been straight with us about how much trouble it would be and how much it would cost. If you were, no one would have ever gone along with it.

But that's what we've been trying for 8 years now and we have ISIS. Unfortunately, the ONLY solution for us is to kill the terrorists before they kill us. Because they are not going to stop trying to kill us. The so-called "normal life" for them is to hate us and want to kill us all. They put guns in the hands of their people when they are big enough to carry them and they are religiously committed to using them until they die to kill Infidels (that's us) and Jews. They are raised to believe their entire life is for the purpose of killing Infidels and Jews and they will be rewarded in heaven with 72 virgins.

Or we could "Just not go into their country" and "Stop supporting the Zionists"

Hey... I am a humanitarian person. I know you don't think so because I am a conservative but really, I am! I don't want to see any senseless death of innocent people or even misguided people. I wish we could all get along and share a Coke and sing on a mountainside holding hands. But we have an enemy who has declared war on us and they are a religiously fanatical enemy who have vowed to their God to kill us or die trying.

No, we have an enemy WE'VE created through years of stupid policy. We created Saddam. We created bin Laden. We created ISIS. We created the rebels who killed Ambassador Stevens.

Ahh...The blame America for everything crowd....No credibility.

 

[thereisnospoon]

Cutting their funds doesn't mean the president will necessarily bring them home.

Well they're going to have a hard time staying without funding. In fact, if a president was negligent in bringing the troops home after Congress repealed the use of force and de-funded the efforts, he could be brought up on articles of impeachment. That is a high crime because only Congress has the authority to declare war. The president can't just do whatever the hell he pleases... I know Obama thinks so, but that's not the powers delegated in the Constitution.

Why do you hate the military so much that you would cut off their support and increase their risk? Cutting their funding doesn't automatically translate into the president withdrawing any troops. Impeacing the president takes time and increases the troops' risk during that process. And even if the impeachment is successful.in removing the president, that only promotes the VP to Commander-in-Chief and still doesn't mean the troops are coming home.

You're a fucking traitor to America.

I don't know why you want to keep saying I hate the military? Makes NO sense to me! This has to be the most convoluted put down in USMB history. You claim I "hate the military" because I don't support funding illegal and illegitimate military ventures that they never should have been sent on in the first place. I am NOT obligated to support funding the military to do anything they shouldn't be ordered to do. If they are engaged in an illegal and illegitimate war the president lied us into, they need to come home... immediately... posthaste! Not one more dime needs to be appropriated for anything other than their immediate transport home. That's a far cry from me "hating" the military!

Now you are arguing that they wouldn't be brought home if funding were cut, but you can't support that ridiculous argument with any sort of rational common sense. It just defies any kind of intelligent thinking. It has to be considered borderline retardation to have such a view. But that is what you've stated!

It takes literally millions of dollars to sustain any kind of military presence. Twisting semantics around and trying to find a way to liberally interpret the Constitution to fit your idiocy doesn't impress me. If there were no funding the troops would have to come home, there is no other option.

Faun has nothing with which to argue. So true to lefty form, keep harping on the same non facts.

 

[JoeB131]

Ahh...The blame America for everything crowd....No credibility.

NOt to mutants like you who thought it was a great idea to arm Bin Laden when he was killing Russians, and then acted all shocked when he started killing Americans.