So now, BUSH caused ISIS?

[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.

"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.

I can't get over how fucking rightarded you are. Even after posting the relevant portions from the Constitution, you still get it wrong

The Constitution does not grant Congress the power to send troops into war. Not even effectively as there's nothing in it which compels the president to deploy troops into battle just because Congress declares war and funds it.

As far as withdrawing troops, again, the Constitution does not provide that power to the Congress. Although if Congress cuts funding for the war, they make it difficult, but not impossible, for a president to keep the troops engaged in battle. At least for a period of time.

 

[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.

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.

Even if a president starts a war unconstitutionally without the consent of Congress, why would you put the troops' lives at risk by cutting off their funding?? You most certainly do hate the military.

 

[Faun]

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.

Of course you implied it. In response to me pointing out that Congress cannot deploy troops into war, you said I was wrong.

That can only translate into you believing Congress can send troops into war. Well ... ? Prove it ...

 

[Faun]

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.

That's ok, I understand why you won't answer... your position is idiotic and you know you'll look even dumber if you try to defend it.

 

[Rexx Taylor]

if Bush caused ISIS, then what event did Monica Lewinsky caused?

 

[Rexx Taylor]

This Just In From MSNBC. Those Four Planes that went missing in the Bermuda Triangle long long ago, Nancy Pelosi and Harry Reid have officially put the blame on both Bush's.

 

[flacaltenn]

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.

It's been obvious to me that our foreign policy has sucked for DECADES. Why you guys fighting over it? Almost EVERY decision in 40 years is misguided. Except maybe the Cuban Missile showdown.

So why are you still arguing about Bush in this thread? I applaud him for doing SOMETHING --- even if it was by accident. Because 12 years of locking up the Iraqi economy and BOMBING them for 12 years and killing 100s of THOUSANDS of them in the process thru collateral damage or disease was NOT an acceptable alternative.

Burns my hide that the left criticizes Bush for DOING SOMETHING -- but never would actually step up to leaving Saddam in power OR offering a smarter plan. Pox on both sides...

So ISIS was in US prisons during Bush and the Admin allowed the Iraqis to manage the prisons after our embarrassing Abu Graib experience.. So What? Obama just traded the future leaders of the Taliban in Afghanistan for a deserter..

THEY ALL SUCK AT IT.....

 

[Boss]

I can't get over how fucking rightarded you are. Even after posting the relevant portions from the Constitution, you still get it wrong

The Constitution does not grant Congress the power to send troops into war. Not even effectively as there's nothing in it which compels the president to deploy troops into battle just because Congress declares war and funds it.

As far as withdrawing troops, again, the Constitution does not provide that power to the Congress. Although if Congress cuts funding for the war, they make it difficult, but not impossible, for a president to keep the troops engaged in battle. At least for a period of time.

I never said the constitution provides Congress with the power to "send troops to war." It expressly gives Congress the authority to DECLARE war. Presidents have no such authority. And yes sir, there is certainly something that compels a president to send troops to a war Congress has declared, it's called the electorate. This is why you can't cite any example in American history where Congress declared a war and the president failed to send troops. It doesn't happen, it won't happen, because if the idea passed Congress then that's what the people want and the president is obliged to take that into consideration. Now, maybe at the Chris Matthews School of Constitutional Law for Idiots, a semantics argument can be made that he doesn't HAVE to... but as I say, that's an argument for silly idiots who have no other argument to make.

As for funding, there is not a way to keep troops sustained in battle without it. I don't know what the fuck you're smoking that makes you think this. Without the necessary funding from Congress, the president's venture is DOA. Congress controls the purse strings and this is the reason they do.

 

[flacaltenn]

Also amazing to me that Repubs are too stupid to point out that the our PREVIOUS Iraq policy of containment was failing and falling apart and SOMETHING different had to be done. Instead -- they constantly fall for the WMD debacle. Did Bush-Clinton-Bush cause 9.11? I believe so.. Because when bin Ladin was asked WHY -- at the top of his list were the bases in Saudi that we were using "for containment". We were lazy and pushed that crappy policy for way too long....

 

[Boss]

Even if a president starts a war unconstitutionally without the consent of Congress, why would you put the troops' lives at risk by cutting off their funding?? You most certainly do hate the military.

You just got through saying it didn't put anything at risk it only makes things difficult.

The troops lives are at risk by being deployed dishonestly by a dishonest president who lied. I don't want their lives risked, I want them at home where they should be. If there is no funding for the venture they have to come home, there isn't an alternative option and you haven't named one.

What you are trying to do is weasel your way out of explaining why your Democrat congressmen continued to fund the war in Iraq, even after you claim they were lied to. You're trying to make the silly claim that presidents can send troops wherever they please on a whim and Congress' hands are tied, they can't do anything but fund the president's whimsical venture or they "hate the military!"

 

[Faun]

I can't get over how fucking rightarded you are. Even after posting the relevant portions from the Constitution, you still get it wrong

The Constitution does not grant Congress the power to send troops into war. Not even effectively as there's nothing in it which compels the president to deploy troops into battle just because Congress declares war and funds it.

As far as withdrawing troops, again, the Constitution does not provide that power to the Congress. Although if Congress cuts funding for the war, they make it difficult, but not impossible, for a president to keep the troops engaged in battle. At least for a period of time.

I never said the constitution provides Congress with the power to "send troops to war." It expressly gives Congress the authority to DECLARE war. Presidents have no such authority. And yes sir, there is certainly something that compels a president to send troops to a war Congress has declared, it's called the electorate. This is why you can't cite any example in American history where Congress declared a war and the president failed to send troops. It doesn't happen, it won't happen, because if the idea passed Congress then that's what the people want and the president is obliged to take that into consideration. Now, maybe at the Chris Matthews School of Constitutional Law for Idiots, a semantics argument can be made that he doesn't HAVE to... but as I say, that's an argument for silly idiots who have no other argument to make.

As for funding, there is not a way to keep troops sustained in battle without it. I don't know what the fuck you're smoking that makes you think this. Without the necessary funding from Congress, the president's venture is DOA. Congress controls the purse strings and this is the reason they do.

I had a hunch you're a piece of shit who would try to back track his words after you were proven to be an abject moron. Here are your own words saying what you now pretend you never said...

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

Then, when I pointed out the idiocy of that retarded claim of yours ...

"Congress has absolutely no authority to send troops to war."

... which is a completely accurate statement, you protested it.

You had no fucking clue what powers were granted the president and Congress until I educated you. But it seems you learned because you've changed your position from the idiotic notion that Congress sends troops into war .... to the actual Constitutional power of declaring war and funding the military.

You're welcome.

 

[Faun]

Even if a president starts a war unconstitutionally without the consent of Congress, why would you put the troops' lives at risk by cutting off their funding?? You most certainly do hate the military.

You just got through saying it didn't put anything at risk it only makes things difficult.

The troops lives are at risk by being deployed dishonestly by a dishonest president who lied. I don't want their lives risked, I want them at home where they should be. If there is no funding for the venture they have to come home, there isn't an alternative option and you haven't named one.

What you are trying to do is weasel your way out of explaining why your Democrat congressmen continued to fund the war in Iraq, even after you claim they were lied to. You're trying to make the silly claim that presidents can send troops wherever they please on a whim and Congress' hands are tied, they can't do anything but fund the president's whimsical venture or they "hate the military!"

Not only did I not say the president can send troops anywhere they want, I even educated you to the fact that Congress declares war.

And what I said is more difficult was a president's ability to keep troops in battle if Congress ceases funding it. It can be done for a period of time, however, it does increase the risk, which is already inherently high, for the troops. You clearly don't give a shit about the troops or you wouldn't be spewing the nonsense you spew.

 

[Boss]

Also amazing to me that Repubs are too stupid to point out that the our PREVIOUS Iraq policy of containment was failing and falling apart and SOMETHING different had to be done. Instead -- they constantly fall for the WMD debacle. Did Bush-Clinton-Bush cause 9.11? I believe so.. Because when bin Ladin was asked WHY -- at the top of his list were the bases in Saudi that we were using "for containment". We were lazy and pushed that crappy policy for way too long....

In a way, you are correct. But the problem goes back to before the policy of containment. It starts with the topple of the Shah in Iran and the takeover of the government by radical Muslims. We were so grateful to get our hostages back, we didn't care about what happened afterward.

Frankly, I don't care what a radical nutjob said was the reason for 9-11. He's our enemy, you think he's being honest? The radicals always have a litany of "issues" which are secondary to the issue of Infidels and Jews breathing the same air as Muslims. They do not recognize our right to exist in the same world with them... I wish people could get this through their heads. They want to see us all DEAD!

Negotiation or containment are just plain stupid policies with an enemy such as this. The only thing proven effective is to kill them... LOTS of them... early and often... wherever we can. I never had a single solitary problem with Bush's War in Iraq. I thought Saddam needed to go in 1991, and he sure as hell needed to go in 2001. I think planting the seeds of democracy in the hotbed of radical Islam is a smart idea... the smartest idea I've heard so far on how to defeat a radical ideology. That wasn't Bush's idea, Congress deliberated on this in 1998 and forged official US policy around it. And even when things were going bad in Iraq, I still thought... hey, at least we're killing some of them! As the radicals made their pilgrimages toward Iraq to fight the Great Satan, I couldn't help but think this is a brilliant plan... lure them to Iraq and kill them all!

 

[Boss]

I can't get over how fucking rightarded you are. Even after posting the relevant portions from the Constitution, you still get it wrong

The Constitution does not grant Congress the power to send troops into war. Not even effectively as there's nothing in it which compels the president to deploy troops into battle just because Congress declares war and funds it.

As far as withdrawing troops, again, the Constitution does not provide that power to the Congress. Although if Congress cuts funding for the war, they make it difficult, but not impossible, for a president to keep the troops engaged in battle. At least for a period of time.

I never said the constitution provides Congress with the power to "send troops to war." It expressly gives Congress the authority to DECLARE war. Presidents have no such authority. And yes sir, there is certainly something that compels a president to send troops to a war Congress has declared, it's called the electorate. This is why you can't cite any example in American history where Congress declared a war and the president failed to send troops. It doesn't happen, it won't happen, because if the idea passed Congress then that's what the people want and the president is obliged to take that into consideration. Now, maybe at the Chris Matthews School of Constitutional Law for Idiots, a semantics argument can be made that he doesn't HAVE to... but as I say, that's an argument for silly idiots who have no other argument to make.

As for funding, there is not a way to keep troops sustained in battle without it. I don't know what the fuck you're smoking that makes you think this. Without the necessary funding from Congress, the president's venture is DOA. Congress controls the purse strings and this is the reason they do.

I had a hunch you're a piece of shit who would try to back track his words after you were proven to be an abject moron. Here are your own words saying what you now pretend you never said...

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

Then, when I pointed out the idiocy of that retarded claim of yours ...

"Congress has absolutely no authority to send troops to war."

... which is a completely accurate statement, you protested it.

You had no fucking clue what powers were granted the president and Congress until I educated you. But it seems you learned because you've changed your position from the idiotic notion that Congress sends troops into war .... to the actual Constitutional power of declaring war and funding the military.

You're welcome.

Well it's because you are a retard trying to find some minutiae to pick at because you can't justify why your Democrat leaders funded the War in Iraq every chance they got. Whenever a retard can't explain something, they jump on something they can nit pick and create a diversion. In this case, you failed to properly interpret my comments in context. You assumed I meant to say something I didn't say. I said "voters don't send troops to war" and that is a true statement which you've not refuted. I added, "Congress does that" and by "that" I mean "ostensibly sends troops to war by virtue of declaring said war whereby the president will always dispatch said troops to said war." There has never been an instance where Congress declared a war and the president did not send troops. You can't cite any example at any time in our nation's history and you never will because such a thing will not happen.

 

[Faun]

I can't get over how fucking rightarded you are. Even after posting the relevant portions from the Constitution, you still get it wrong

The Constitution does not grant Congress the power to send troops into war. Not even effectively as there's nothing in it which compels the president to deploy troops into battle just because Congress declares war and funds it.

As far as withdrawing troops, again, the Constitution does not provide that power to the Congress. Although if Congress cuts funding for the war, they make it difficult, but not impossible, for a president to keep the troops engaged in battle. At least for a period of time.

I never said the constitution provides Congress with the power to "send troops to war." It expressly gives Congress the authority to DECLARE war. Presidents have no such authority. And yes sir, there is certainly something that compels a president to send troops to a war Congress has declared, it's called the electorate. This is why you can't cite any example in American history where Congress declared a war and the president failed to send troops. It doesn't happen, it won't happen, because if the idea passed Congress then that's what the people want and the president is obliged to take that into consideration. Now, maybe at the Chris Matthews School of Constitutional Law for Idiots, a semantics argument can be made that he doesn't HAVE to... but as I say, that's an argument for silly idiots who have no other argument to make.

As for funding, there is not a way to keep troops sustained in battle without it. I don't know what the fuck you're smoking that makes you think this. Without the necessary funding from Congress, the president's venture is DOA. Congress controls the purse strings and this is the reason they do.

I had a hunch you're a piece of shit who would try to back track his words after you were proven to be an abject moron. Here are your own words saying what you now pretend you never said...

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

Then, when I pointed out the idiocy of that retarded claim of yours ...

"Congress has absolutely no authority to send troops to war."

... which is a completely accurate statement, you protested it.

You had no fucking clue what powers were granted the president and Congress until I educated you. But it seems you learned because you've changed your position from the idiotic notion that Congress sends troops into war .... to the actual Constitutional power of declaring war and funding the military.

You're welcome.

Well it's because you are a retard trying to find some minutiae to pick at because you can't justify why your Democrat leaders funded the War in Iraq every chance they got. Whenever a retard can't explain something, they jump on something they can nit pick and create a diversion. In this case, you failed to properly interpret my comments in context. You assumed I meant to say something I didn't say. I said "voters don't send troops to war" and that is a true statement which you've not refuted. I added, "Congress does that" and by "that" I mean "ostensibly sends troops to war by virtue of declaring said war whereby the president will always dispatch said troops to said war." There has never been an instance where Congress declared a war and the president did not send troops. You can't cite any example at any time in our nation's history and you never will because such a thing will not happen.

What you call, "minutiae," is actually your own retarded words fed back to you. And just because there's not been a case where a president did not send troops into battle following a Congressional declaration of war, doesn't mean the president is required to. They're not. Nowhere in the Constitution does it mandate a president to start a war simply because the Congress declares one. Not to mention, there have been 11 such declarations and in every case, the president asked the Congress to declare war.

You really should educate yourself.

 

[Boss]

I can't get over how fucking rightarded you are. Even after posting the relevant portions from the Constitution, you still get it wrong

The Constitution does not grant Congress the power to send troops into war. Not even effectively as there's nothing in it which compels the president to deploy troops into battle just because Congress declares war and funds it.

As far as withdrawing troops, again, the Constitution does not provide that power to the Congress. Although if Congress cuts funding for the war, they make it difficult, but not impossible, for a president to keep the troops engaged in battle. At least for a period of time.

I never said the constitution provides Congress with the power to "send troops to war." It expressly gives Congress the authority to DECLARE war. Presidents have no such authority. And yes sir, there is certainly something that compels a president to send troops to a war Congress has declared, it's called the electorate. This is why you can't cite any example in American history where Congress declared a war and the president failed to send troops. It doesn't happen, it won't happen, because if the idea passed Congress then that's what the people want and the president is obliged to take that into consideration. Now, maybe at the Chris Matthews School of Constitutional Law for Idiots, a semantics argument can be made that he doesn't HAVE to... but as I say, that's an argument for silly idiots who have no other argument to make.

As for funding, there is not a way to keep troops sustained in battle without it. I don't know what the fuck you're smoking that makes you think this. Without the necessary funding from Congress, the president's venture is DOA. Congress controls the purse strings and this is the reason they do.

I had a hunch you're a piece of shit who would try to back track his words after you were proven to be an abject moron. Here are your own words saying what you now pretend you never said...

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

Then, when I pointed out the idiocy of that retarded claim of yours ...

"Congress has absolutely no authority to send troops to war."

... which is a completely accurate statement, you protested it.

You had no fucking clue what powers were granted the president and Congress until I educated you. But it seems you learned because you've changed your position from the idiotic notion that Congress sends troops into war .... to the actual Constitutional power of declaring war and funding the military.

You're welcome.

Well it's because you are a retard trying to find some minutiae to pick at because you can't justify why your Democrat leaders funded the War in Iraq every chance they got. Whenever a retard can't explain something, they jump on something they can nit pick and create a diversion. In this case, you failed to properly interpret my comments in context. You assumed I meant to say something I didn't say. I said "voters don't send troops to war" and that is a true statement which you've not refuted. I added, "Congress does that" and by "that" I mean "ostensibly sends troops to war by virtue of declaring said war whereby the president will always dispatch said troops to said war." There has never been an instance where Congress declared a war and the president did not send troops. You can't cite any example at any time in our nation's history and you never will because such a thing will not happen.

What you call, "minutiae," is actually your own retarded words fed back to you. And just because there's not been a case where a president did not send troops into battle following a Congressional declaration of war, doesn't mean the president is required to. They're not. Nowhere in the Constitution does it mandate a president to start a war simply because the Congress declares one. Not to mention, there have been 11 such declarations and in every case, the president asked the Congress to declare war.

You really should educate yourself.

And as I said, you took my words out of context to make them mean something I didn't intend or say. I have now clarified what I meant and you still want to stubbornly insist you know better than me what I meant to say.

Now.... HAS there ever been an instance where Congress declared a war and the president refused to send troops? Yes or fucking No? (Answer is: NO!) Still, you stubbornly cling to some retarded idea that this COULD happen. It won't, it never has happened. As you said, there have been 11 declarations and every one was because the president requested them. So we're getting even more convoluted and your argument becomes even more silly and ridiculous.

Congress has the enumerated power to declare war. In essence, that is the same as having the power to send troops because that's what happens when Congress declares a war. There is no case where that didn't happen. There is also a rather lengthy list of enumerated powers Congress has regarding the military including the appropriation of funding for various things. So Congress certainly has control of most everything our military does one way or another.

I know that you thought this whole argument was rather clever but it was actually pretty retarded.

 

[JoeB131]

Okay, bud, you are kind of all over the map here. So let's try to get some clarity.

It's been obvious to me that our foreign policy has sucked for DECADES. Why you guys fighting over it? Almost EVERY decision in 40 years is misguided. Except maybe the Cuban Missile showdown.

We've made a lot of bad decisions. But the first thing we need to look at is why we are making them at all. We are in the Middle East Quagmire for two reasons. 1) The Zionists have an undue influence on our foreign policy and 2) We have an unquenchable thirst for petroleum. And about 1974, the Arabs figured out how to use the latter because they didn't like the former.

It isn't just that our policy is misguided, it's that it's based on bad priorities. Take the aforementioned arming of Bin Laden. the CIA liked Bin Laden over the local tribes because they were easier to understand. Arabs wanting to kill Communists, got it. Better than trying to figure out why the Pushtans didn't like the Tajiks or the Uzbeks.

That these radicals woudl want to change the whole middle east, and not just Afghanistan never occurred to the CIA or Reagan.

So why are you still arguing about Bush in this thread? I applaud him for doing SOMETHING --- even if it was by accident. Because 12 years of locking up the Iraqi economy and BOMBING them for 12 years and killing 100s of THOUSANDS of them in the process thru collateral damage or disease was NOT an acceptable alternative.

All the Iraqis had to do to p ut a stop to that was depose Saddam on their own. They didn't do that. and while the effects of santions were bad, the effect of the war was worse. It's like burning down your house because you have termites, and then express surprise when the fire spreads to the neighbor's house as well.

Burns my hide that the left criticizes Bush for DOING SOMETHING -- but never would actually step up to leaving Saddam in power OR offering a smarter plan. Pox on both sides...

But Bush did more than that. He took a completely unrelated terrorist attack and used the fear it caused to get a policy that we never would have gone with normally. could Bush have gotten his war with Saddam without 9/11? Never.

So ISIS was in US prisons during Bush and the Admin allowed the Iraqis to manage the prisons after our embarrassing Abu Graib experience.. So What? Obama just traded the future leaders of the Taliban in Afghanistan for a deserter..

NO, we released 5 guys we had no business holding for as long as we did. They had committed no crimes against America. Just like most of the ISIS guys we had no business holding, but in the time we did, we made enemies for life.

This is a large part of the problem. Either you charge guys for crimes and put them on trial, or you treat them like POW's and afford them protections under the Geneva Convention, which includes not questioning them and not torturing them and releasing them when hostilities are over.

Instead, you have Khalid Sheikh Mohammed, who we can't even put on trial for 9/11 because they tortured him for useless information, and all the evidence against him would be thrown out of a court.

 

[Boss]

We've made a lot of bad decisions. But the first thing we need to look at is why we are making them at all. We are in the Middle East Quagmire for two reasons. 1) The Zionists have an undue influence on our foreign policy and 2) We have an unquenchable thirst for petroleum. And about 1974, the Arabs figured out how to use the latter because they didn't like the former.

First of all, the Jewish people have nothing to do with our system of government or how US foreign policies are established. Do Jewish-Americans have political influence? Sure they do, just like Liberal morons, corporate billionaires, special interest lobbies, labor unions and PACs. It's called having a free society with protected rights of free speech. Now you say they have "undue influence" but you didn't explain... do you think free speech is limited to a certain amount depending on who you are? Because I don't think it is and I don't believe the founders thought it should be.

The fact is, most people in this country aren't Jew-haters like you. They wouldn't tolerate a president who didn't give a shit about the Jewish people. The only reason they've tolerated Obama is because he is a good liar. Israel is our ally... in fact, one of our few allies in the region. This angers radical terrorists who are religiously committed to killing Jews... maybe that's why you like them so much?

The other point you make is about some "unquenchable thirst" for oil. Interesting terminology that reveals the level of your shallow thinking. A thirst for something is a desire... a thirst for blood... a thirst for wealth... a thirst for adventure... these are desired things. Oil is a necessity and it's absolutely "quenchable" if we satisfy the demand. Right now, we have to rely on oil from the Middle East... that's just a fact of life. We don't steal the oil, we pay for every drop. We're not buying oil someone else could use but if we didn't buy it someone else would. Oil is a vital resource.

So... We have to be over there because of the oil and our investments as well as promises to our allies. Of course radical terrorists who hate Jews and want them all dead, don't want us there. But their beef is not us being there... it's Jews still existing. So leaving there would not solve this problem in any way. Not unless we left and allowed them to exterminate all the Jews... then maybe that would solve the problem, for a while... until they decided to kill all Infidels next and that means you.

 

[Andylusion]

I don't make a habit out of reading left-wing rants online but every now and then something will emerge that catches my attention. Mostly because it keeps being repeated in the echo chamber of liberal America and eventually the meme pops up on your Facebook page. Apparently, one of the latest memes from Liberalmania is that Bush caused ISIS.

I get it... Bush started the Iraq War and created a destabilization by toppling Saddam and ISIS has filled the void. But this completely disregards what went down and what we were told by the people in the know back then. Those of us who supported the War in Iraq and the War on Terror, made it adamantly clear that our reasoning was simple, we kill them NOW instead of dealing with them later.

You were repeatedly warned of the dangers in ignoring the threat of radical Islamic terrorism, and you would have no part of it. Nothing was going to do until you ended the war and destroyed Bush. So we abandoned the War on Terror, we abandoned the few people over there who were helping us build democracy and restore peace, and we moved toward your policies of appeasement and diplomacy. Now we're paying the price for not eliminating the threat when we had the chance.

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.

Radical Islam is not a joke. It wasn't something to take lightly. It certainly wasn't something that should have been turned into a political football for the purpose of bringing down a president. But.... that's our history in this country! We are constantly following the liberal heart and then having to pay the price in the end with more loss of life and greater wars.

As always there are grains of truth hidden in the mud pit of left-wing hate. I agree with us going into Iraq. That said:

Bush made an error. He placed a politician in charge of Iraq, instead of the military. Truman, as screwed up as he was, did one thing right. He left Douglas MacAurthur in charge of the occupation of Japan. When you fight an enemy, you get to really know them. MacAurthur knew how to handle the Japanese, because he had dealt with them so long.

After the war with Saddam, Bush sent a politician named Paul Bremer, who summarily dismissed the Iraq army, and imposed a ban on former Saddam officials.

Ironically, Jay Garner, the military general originally in charge of the occupation, directly opposed both of these moves.

Again, the ones who understand the people you are occupying, are the ones who fought them. They know their enemy. I'm convinced that had Garner been left in charge of Iraq, just like MacAurthur was left in charge of Japan, that things would have turned out differently.

Bremer wasn't a bad man, or stupid. It is simply that what looks like a good move politically, may have massively negative consequences.

Saddam had a network of clerics and teachers of Islam, within the Baath party. When Bremer banned former Baath members, tons of highly connected, highly influential, highly Islamist people were dumped onto the streets, angry at Americans, with nothing to do. Additionally, Bremer dismissed the Iraq army at almost the exact same time. So now tons of unskilled, fully armed, with no future prospects, and angry at American, former soldiers without a leader, are also out on the streets with nothing to do.

As if that combination wasn't bad enough, you have to remember that Saddam had issued a directive for these government clerics to come up with a pure-form of Islam.

Add into that dangerous mix, a superiority complex.

Other Jihadist groups tend to not have any real governing ability whatsoever. ISIS does. Why? Because the key leaders of ISIS came from former government positions in Iraq.

Why Bush placed Bremer over Garner, I do not know. Garner gave his reasons for his actions, and while there is a certain logic behind all of them, the unintended consequences, was to give radicalized clerics and teachers, a ready group of angry trained militiamen, and the influential support from well connected politicians.

Where the left get's it wrong, is that ISIS didn't start in Iraq, but rather in Syria, where rebels desperate for support, turned to ISIS for help.

They also get it wrong, on who caused radicalization. It wasn't Bush, but rather Saddam in the 90s, the promoted and funded the development of "a pure Islam". The radical clerics already existed. Short of slaughtering all of them in a mass execution, I'm not sure what else could have been done with them.

 

[Kondor3]

...Boooosh caused my 'roids, and killed Joan Rivers too.

Well, Rivers was a righteous shoot, anyway... if it weren't for the inadvertant release of train-carloads of Botox into the environment...