Speculate with me about the Iraq war...

[TheOldSchool]

I know, I know that asking folks to speculate is always a risky business.....But give it a try....

Have we NOT had the invasion in Iraq:

Would we have the current fear of Iran with the potential nukes? (bear in mind that prior to 2001, Iran had zero centrifuges)???

Would we have the brutal rise of ISIS???

Would we have the civil war in Syria and the tragedy of hundred of thousands of refugees???

Would we have the plight of Jordan and Lebanon???

Would we have the messes that now exist in Egypt and Libya???

If you care to honestly speculate, then think of the tragedy that was the Cheney-Bush administration.

I will pass....
We have been down this rabbit hole 100,000 times already.
Will watch the Mets instead.

But you have a good time with it...

FUCK THE METS!!! THEY ARE NOTHING!

I'm a Nats fan.

 

[boedicca]

How many more 9/11s would have occurred in the U.S.?

 

[gipper]

Military interventions always have negative consequences. No doubt Bush holds much responsibility for the current problems. However, so does Obama who intervened in Syria, Egypt, and Libya. Your failure to recognize this, means you are a typical left wing partisan...blind to reality

Certainly Obama was a fool for involving us in thousands year old religious nonsense in a bunch of desert wastelands. But whatever he's added to the avalanche, it was Dubya that set it off in the first place.

No.

Obama did not have to overthrow Qaddafi leading to Benghazi and thousands fleeing across the Med Sea to Italy. He did not have to support ISIS in it's efforts to overthrow Assad, resulting in terrible human suffering.

Why is it some people can only see the wrongs committed by the political party they oppose and ignore the wrongs by the party they approve of? Partisanship apparently makes some people dumb.

You're right Obama fucked those things up. But you'll never convince me there's any comparison between how he handled those situations and the absolute disaster that Bush unleashed on the world.

There is no doubt bush was a disaster, but so is Obama.

And then there is this...
During the George W Bush administration, the US conducted around 50 drone strikes to kill suspected terrorists. The Obama administration, however, has ordered around 500 strikes, according to the Bureau of Investigative Journalism, which tracks the use of drones by the US military and CIA.
Deadly US drone programme still controversial - FT.com

I'll never be as angry about drone strikes as I was about Bush sending our brave soldiers to die by the thousands for nothing in the sand on the complete other side of the planet. I'm all for improving drone technology.

I do not disagree about bush, but drone killings cause tremendous hatred of America and should be completely discontinued.

 

[occupied]

Military interventions always have negative consequences. No doubt Bush holds much responsibility for the current problems. However, so does Obama who intervened in Syria, Egypt, and Libya. Your failure to recognize this, means you are a typical left wing partisan...blind to reality

Certainly Obama was a fool for involving us in thousands year old religious nonsense in a bunch of desert wastelands. But whatever he's added to the avalanche, it was Dubya that set it off in the first place.

No.

Obama did not have to overthrow Qaddafi leading to Benghazi and thousands fleeing across the Med Sea to Italy. He did not have to support ISIS in it's efforts to overthrow Assad, resulting in terrible human suffering.

Why is it some people can only see the wrongs committed by the political party they oppose and ignore the wrongs by the party they approve of? Partisanship apparently makes some people dumb.

You're right Obama fucked those things up. But you'll never convince me there's any comparison between how he handled those situations and the absolute disaster that Bush unleashed on the world.

There is no doubt bush was a disaster, but so is Obama.

And then there is this...
During the George W Bush administration, the US conducted around 50 drone strikes to kill suspected terrorists. The Obama administration, however, has ordered around 500 strikes, according to the Bureau of Investigative Journalism, which tracks the use of drones by the US military and CIA.
Deadly US drone programme still controversial - FT.com

I'll never be as angry about drone strikes as I was about Bush sending our brave soldiers to die by the thousands for nothing in the sand on the complete other side of the planet. I'm all for improving drone technology.

Yes, it is important to note that drones did not really come into their own until fairly late in the game, Bush did not have a lot of time or the strategic vision to use them effectively instead of flesh and blood soldiers.

 

[TheOldSchool]

Military interventions always have negative consequences. No doubt Bush holds much responsibility for the current problems. However, so does Obama who intervened in Syria, Egypt, and Libya. Your failure to recognize this, means you are a typical left wing partisan...blind to reality

Certainly Obama was a fool for involving us in thousands year old religious nonsense in a bunch of desert wastelands. But whatever he's added to the avalanche, it was Dubya that set it off in the first place.

Our pentagon in it's usual overly-optimistic way had every confidence we could ride that tiger all the way to a pacified mid-east colony that would welcome their new American overlords. What hubris those people had.

It's the Pentagon's job to think that way though. They're tasked with having a contingency plan for everything and a plan to make it work. The Bush administration is to blame for ordering them to wage a war purely for political benefit. And for managing the Pentagon according to how the political winds were blowing.

I believe it to be the other way around, the pentagon handled him, through Cheney to get the war they really wanted, an indefinite but lengthy occupation. During the fog of war there are infinite opportunities to make tons of cash. If you follow the money, look at who got richer, then it was the MIC that wanted that war and convinced Bushco to sell it.

I think you are wrong. If our Generals and Admirals are gung-ho to get our soldiers killed, then all is lost. IMO republicans in the 2000's and even now view soldiers as their pawns. And they'll send them to die according to how politics dictate.

This is why I want someone who is former military in the White House. Because they understand the price that is paid when we go to war, and they won't do so lightly.

 

[gipper]

Why is it some people can only see the wrongs committed by the political party they oppose and ignore the wrongs by the party they approve of? Partisanship apparently makes some people dumb.

That is very, very unfair.....Many of us on the left are thoroughly pissed at Obama for many of his decisions......Obama's "crime" is accessory to a much more serious crime......and you know who set that mess in motion.

Glad to hear it, but you know there are many who blame bush or obama, but not both...when both are fully deserving of blame.

Conditions in the ME today are terrible because of the two fools The influx of Muslims in Europe today is likely more the responsibility of Obama than Bush.

 

[TheOldSchool]

Certainly Obama was a fool for involving us in thousands year old religious nonsense in a bunch of desert wastelands. But whatever he's added to the avalanche, it was Dubya that set it off in the first place.

No.

Obama did not have to overthrow Qaddafi leading to Benghazi and thousands fleeing across the Med Sea to Italy. He did not have to support ISIS in it's efforts to overthrow Assad, resulting in terrible human suffering.

Why is it some people can only see the wrongs committed by the political party they oppose and ignore the wrongs by the party they approve of? Partisanship apparently makes some people dumb.

You're right Obama fucked those things up. But you'll never convince me there's any comparison between how he handled those situations and the absolute disaster that Bush unleashed on the world.

There is no doubt bush was a disaster, but so is Obama.

And then there is this...
During the George W Bush administration, the US conducted around 50 drone strikes to kill suspected terrorists. The Obama administration, however, has ordered around 500 strikes, according to the Bureau of Investigative Journalism, which tracks the use of drones by the US military and CIA.
Deadly US drone programme still controversial - FT.com

I'll never be as angry about drone strikes as I was about Bush sending our brave soldiers to die by the thousands for nothing in the sand on the complete other side of the planet. I'm all for improving drone technology.

I do not disagree about bush, but drone killings cause tremendous hatred of America and should be completely discontinued.

Fair enough. I agree to an extent. But I'd prefer a drone strike against a terrorist caravan than sending soldiers into a booby trapped enemy country.

 

[gipper]

No.

Obama did not have to overthrow Qaddafi leading to Benghazi and thousands fleeing across the Med Sea to Italy. He did not have to support ISIS in it's efforts to overthrow Assad, resulting in terrible human suffering.

Why is it some people can only see the wrongs committed by the political party they oppose and ignore the wrongs by the party they approve of? Partisanship apparently makes some people dumb.

You're right Obama fucked those things up. But you'll never convince me there's any comparison between how he handled those situations and the absolute disaster that Bush unleashed on the world.

There is no doubt bush was a disaster, but so is Obama.

And then there is this...
During the George W Bush administration, the US conducted around 50 drone strikes to kill suspected terrorists. The Obama administration, however, has ordered around 500 strikes, according to the Bureau of Investigative Journalism, which tracks the use of drones by the US military and CIA.
Deadly US drone programme still controversial - FT.com

I'll never be as angry about drone strikes as I was about Bush sending our brave soldiers to die by the thousands for nothing in the sand on the complete other side of the planet. I'm all for improving drone technology.

I do not disagree about bush, but drone killings cause tremendous hatred of America and should be completely discontinued.

Fair enough. I agree to an extent. But I'd prefer a drone strike against a terrorist caravan than sending soldiers into a booby trapped enemy country.

If we minded our own business and stayed out of theirs, there would be no need for drones or soldiers.

Non-interventionist policies is the answer, but the elites love war...war is the health of the state.

 

[Rozman]

I know, I know that asking folks to speculate is always a risky business.....But give it a try....

Have we NOT had the invasion in Iraq:

Would we have the current fear of Iran with the potential nukes? (bear in mind that prior to 2001, Iran had zero centrifuges)???

Would we have the brutal rise of ISIS???

Would we have the civil war in Syria and the tragedy of hundred of thousands of refugees???

Would we have the plight of Jordan and Lebanon???

Would we have the messes that now exist in Egypt and Libya???

If you care to honestly speculate, then think of the tragedy that was the Cheney-Bush administration.

I will pass....
We have been down this rabbit hole 100,000 times already.
Will watch the Mets instead.

But you have a good time with it...

FUCK THE METS!!! THEY ARE NOTHING!

I'm a Nats fan.

First place in the NL East.....
That's a whole lot of nothing?....

But go play the Bush sucks game....and enjoy.
I will enjoy the ballgame.

 

[TheOldSchool]

You're right Obama fucked those things up. But you'll never convince me there's any comparison between how he handled those situations and the absolute disaster that Bush unleashed on the world.

There is no doubt bush was a disaster, but so is Obama.

And then there is this...
During the George W Bush administration, the US conducted around 50 drone strikes to kill suspected terrorists. The Obama administration, however, has ordered around 500 strikes, according to the Bureau of Investigative Journalism, which tracks the use of drones by the US military and CIA.
Deadly US drone programme still controversial - FT.com

I'll never be as angry about drone strikes as I was about Bush sending our brave soldiers to die by the thousands for nothing in the sand on the complete other side of the planet. I'm all for improving drone technology.

I do not disagree about bush, but drone killings cause tremendous hatred of America and should be completely discontinued.

Fair enough. I agree to an extent. But I'd prefer a drone strike against a terrorist caravan than sending soldiers into a booby trapped enemy country.

If we minded our own business and stayed out of theirs, there would be no need for drones or soldiers.

Non-interventionist policies is the answer, but the elites love war...war is the health of the state.

True. It served us well for hundreds of years. Once upon a time all we cared about was improving our country, not being the world's police.

 

[blackhawk]

Would things be different yes would they be better no way to know.

 

[TheOldSchool]

I know, I know that asking folks to speculate is always a risky business.....But give it a try....

Have we NOT had the invasion in Iraq:

Would we have the current fear of Iran with the potential nukes? (bear in mind that prior to 2001, Iran had zero centrifuges)???

Would we have the brutal rise of ISIS???

Would we have the civil war in Syria and the tragedy of hundred of thousands of refugees???

Would we have the plight of Jordan and Lebanon???

Would we have the messes that now exist in Egypt and Libya???

If you care to honestly speculate, then think of the tragedy that was the Cheney-Bush administration.

I will pass....
We have been down this rabbit hole 100,000 times already.
Will watch the Mets instead.

But you have a good time with it...

FUCK THE METS!!! THEY ARE NOTHING!

I'm a Nats fan.

First place in the NL East.....
That's a whole lot of nothing?....

But go play the Bush sucks game....and enjoy.
I will enjoy the ballgame.

Lol did you skip my fine print? Sheesh sports are supposed to be fun...

 

[occupied]

How many more 9/11s would have occurred in the U.S.?

Zero that Saddam Hussein had to do with, just like the one that scared you people into supporting all sorts of stupid/fascist things that had nothing to do with killing Al Qaeda and Osama Bin Laden. The military adventure in Afghanistan initially had tremendous popular support, it's the other shit that showed us what we were dealing with in the White House.

 

[whitehall]

Bill Clinton told Americans that Saddam was developing WMD's. George Bush gave Saddam about a year to comply with UN sanctions. Can we speculate that Iran's current nuclear development seemingly out of nowhere is a result of Iraq shipping it's nuclear technology to Iran just like they hid their air force in their former enemy's country?

 

[gipper]

Would things be different yes would they be better no way to know.

I am sure the Iraqi people are not unsure.

 

[TheOldSchool]

Bill Clinton told Americans that Saddam was developing WMD's. George Bush gave Saddam about a year to comply with UN sanctions. Can we speculate that Iran's current nuclear development seemingly out of nowhere is a result of Iraq shipping it's nuclear technology to Iran just like they hid their air force in their former enemy's country?

Yeah Iran and Iraq have always been best friends. This obviously happened.

 

[boedicca]

How many more 9/11s would have occurred in the U.S.?

Zero that Saddam Hussein had to do with, just like the one that scared you people into supporting all sorts of stupid/fascist things that had nothing to do with killing Al Qaeda and Osama Bin Laden. The military adventure in Afghanistan initially had tremendous popular support, it's the other shit that showed us what we were dealing with in the White House.

Speaking of FASCISM, why don't you aim your ire at the current resident of the White House?

More people have been killed on his watch than on Dubya's...and the current humanitarian crisis facing the world is the direct result of his incredibly incompetent losing of a war that had been won.

 

[nat4900]

Would things be different yes would they be better no way to know.

In your case, then, stay far, far away from any "cause and effect" issues.

 

[occupied]

Military interventions always have negative consequences. No doubt Bush holds much responsibility for the current problems. However, so does Obama who intervened in Syria, Egypt, and Libya. Your failure to recognize this, means you are a typical left wing partisan...blind to reality

Certainly Obama was a fool for involving us in thousands year old religious nonsense in a bunch of desert wastelands. But whatever he's added to the avalanche, it was Dubya that set it off in the first place.

Our pentagon in it's usual overly-optimistic way had every confidence we could ride that tiger all the way to a pacified mid-east colony that would welcome their new American overlords. What hubris those people had.

It's the Pentagon's job to think that way though. They're tasked with having a contingency plan for everything and a plan to make it work. The Bush administration is to blame for ordering them to wage a war purely for political benefit. And for managing the Pentagon according to how the political winds were blowing.

I believe it to be the other way around, the pentagon handled him, through Cheney to get the war they really wanted, an indefinite but lengthy occupation. During the fog of war there are infinite opportunities to make tons of cash. If you follow the money, look at who got richer, then it was the MIC that wanted that war and convinced Bushco to sell it.

I think you are wrong. If our Generals and Admirals are gung-ho to get our soldiers killed, then all is lost. IMO republicans in the 2000's and even now view soldiers as their pawns. And they'll send them to die according to how politics dictate.

This is why I want someone who is former military in the White House. Because they understand the price that is paid when we go to war, and they won't do so lightly.

It does not take a general to know that war should never be sought but never ruled out after all non-military options have been exhausted.

 

[Rozman]

I know, I know that asking folks to speculate is always a risky business.....But give it a try....

Have we NOT had the invasion in Iraq:

Would we have the current fear of Iran with the potential nukes? (bear in mind that prior to 2001, Iran had zero centrifuges)???

Would we have the brutal rise of ISIS???

Would we have the civil war in Syria and the tragedy of hundred of thousands of refugees???

Would we have the plight of Jordan and Lebanon???

Would we have the messes that now exist in Egypt and Libya???

If you care to honestly speculate, then think of the tragedy that was the Cheney-Bush administration.

I will pass....
We have been down this rabbit hole 100,000 times already.
Will watch the Mets instead.

But you have a good time with it...

FUCK THE METS!!! THEY ARE NOTHING!

I'm a Nats fan.

First place in the NL East.....
That's a whole lot of nothing?....

But go play the Bush sucks game....and enjoy.
I will enjoy the ballgame.

Lol did you skip my fine print? Sheesh sports are supposed to be fun...

Well your guys are having fun tonight....