Follow along with the video below to see how to install our site as a web app on your home screen.
Note: This feature may not be available in some browsers.
Unlock unbeatable offers today. Shop here: https://amzn.to/4cEkqYs 🎁
I'm not a liberal, go fuck yourself, moron.If Bush hadn't destabilized Iraq by invading and destroying it, ISIS probably wouldn't be there. Saddam would have wiped his ass with them.
Yeah, because terrorism didn't exist before Bush invaded Iraq.
Yeah, I guess 9/11 happened because Bush invaded Iraq, too!
oh, wait a minute! Oops!
Keep trying that spin, liberals!
[
And Bush warned what would happen if Obama pulled out too soon.
Like the Democrats did when they shamefully pulled out of Vietnam and allowed the "Killing Fields" to happen.
The press gave the Democrats cover, just as the press is now trying to give Obama cover.
But some of us, actually pay attention to history and not liberal spin.
What amazes me is here is a guy who ran against the war in Iraq, and here he is repeating the same mistakes. Bush was an idiot, no doubt, but what do you call someone who sees that, and then willfully does the same damn thing?
Isis, or Isil, is not a real threat to the US. The US has no legitimate interest in getting sucked into another sand war.
The first and second gulf war started with bombing campaigns as well. Why wouldn't the third? I am shocked and awed by the notion "oh, it's only bombing", as if that doesn't engender hatred and loathing on the part of the targets. And then 20 years from now, some orphans from the current campaign will fly planes into buildings, or detonate nukes in an american city, and the Usians will wonder why. Lather, rinse, repeat.Well, we are not sending 500,000 troops into Afghanistan and Arabia under Obama so it's not the same thing.
That being said, I think that you're 100% correct that the US has no legitimate interest in another war over there; only to install yet another American hating theocrat as a figurehead that will thankus for the gallons of American blood spilled and then kindly tell us to leave...only to start the whole process of dictatorship over again.
=========If Bush hadn't destabilized Iraq by invading and destroying it, ISIS probably wouldn't be there. Saddam would have wiped his ass with them.
Your undying love of Saddam Hussein is duly noted.If Bush hadn't destabilized Iraq by invading and destroying it, ISIS probably wouldn't be there. Saddam would have wiped his ass with them.
How clever. But I did notice that you didn't dispute what I said.Your undying love of Saddam Hussein is duly noted.If Bush hadn't destabilized Iraq by invading and destroying it, ISIS probably wouldn't be there. Saddam would have wiped his ass with them.
Voted for on false info. But you knew that already.=========If Bush hadn't destabilized Iraq by invading and destroying it, ISIS probably wouldn't be there. Saddam would have wiped his ass with them.
IF...., IF....., IF.....,
the British had never sent troops to the colonies, and destabilized a peaceful society there never would have been a Revolutionary war !
fucking Demorats voted for and demanded Bush take action so where is your (inclusive of ALL liberdummies on this forum) main bitch ?
=============If Bush hadn't destabilized Iraq by invading and destroying it, ISIS probably wouldn't be there. Saddam would have wiped his ass with them.
Yep. And Iran wouldn't be so emboldened. They should have sent Bush a Thank You card.
This was all predictable. This was all predicted.
.
Yeah, Iran isn't "emboldened" because Obama does NOTHING about them building a bomb!
Nooooooooooooooo, it's all Bush's fault.
Keep trying libs!
The Middle East was in bad enough shape before Bush's war in Iraq. He made that situation even worse, as many of us predicted. At a cost of thousands of young American lives, limbs and minds. At a cost of a trillion dollars that we didn't have.
You can pretend that isn't true, and that's fine. You have an ideology to defend, no matter what.
.
Voted for on false info. But you knew that already.=========If Bush hadn't destabilized Iraq by invading and destroying it, ISIS probably wouldn't be there. Saddam would have wiped his ass with them.
IF...., IF....., IF.....,
the British had never sent troops to the colonies, and destabilized a peaceful society there never would have been a Revolutionary war !
fucking Demorats voted for and demanded Bush take action so where is your (inclusive of ALL liberdummies on this forum) main bitch ?
PS I'm not even a liberal, you double loser.
ISIL never even attacked us!!!
You can't fight an ideology with bullets and bombs!
Obama is only making more terrorists!!
Hey, that only works when a Republican is president!
A Democrat is president, so it's different!
Right liberals????
That doesn't mean you are all proven, laughable, self-righteous, hypocrites again?????
Because I was against invading Iraq for a bogus reason that makes me a liberal? Why, are conservatives bound to a strict ideology like communists?Voted for on false info. But you knew that already.=========If Bush hadn't destabilized Iraq by invading and destroying it, ISIS probably wouldn't be there. Saddam would have wiped his ass with them.
IF...., IF....., IF.....,
the British had never sent troops to the colonies, and destabilized a peaceful society there never would have been a Revolutionary war !
fucking Demorats voted for and demanded Bush take action so where is your (inclusive of ALL liberdummies on this forum) main bitch ?
PS I'm not even a liberal, you double loser.
false info?
so the Clinton administration passed it onto him? right, ps you're not a liberal
That was the strategy during the cold war: install or support dictators to keep communists out of power. It kinda, sorta, worked, too. Of course, it was reprehensible, but it was during a global existential threat. Islamic extremists do not pose such a threat, and do not justify installing or deposing anyone, and certainly don't merit getting entangled for another decade in yet another ME war.Your undying love of Saddam Hussein is duly noted.
OH! Never mind!
What am I talking about? A Democrat is president! It's OKAY when HE talks about war, right????
Obama lays out plan to eradicate cancer of Islamic State fighters TheHillObama lays out plan to 'eradicate cancer' of Islamic State fighters
President Obama vowed to “destroy” Islamic State in Iraq and Syria terrorists in a prime-time address Wednesday that sought to restore eroding public confidence in his leadership and ability to safeguard national security.
The president announced a “systematic campaign of airstrikes” against fighters with the ISIS “wherever they exist,” signaling U.S. targets will expand from Iraq to Syria.
I have made it clear that we will hunt down terrorists who threaten our country wherever they are,” Obama said during the 15-minute address from the White House. “That means I will not hesitate to take action against [ISIS] in Syria, as well as Iraq. This is a core principle of my presidency: If you threaten America, you will find no safe haven.”
Remember the good old days liberals? When a Republican was president and your messiah could shoot his mouth off about Iraq anytime he wanted?
Yeah, those were the "good old days."
Now, the shoe is on the other foot. NOW, a Democrat is president and what do you know? Terrorists DON'T love us more because a black man/muslim/Kenyan/whatever is president.
Now, Obama finally has the problem in HIS lap.
So, he TALKS tough. He draws red lines like he already did in Syria and then did . . . . NOTHING.
So, he's talking tough again. Does he still think that all he need do?
Wait and see.
Just count on HYPOCRITE LIBERALS not to call Obama a war criminal, claim he's violating the Geneva Convention (that was always a funny one) or he violating the Constitution (and when has Obama cared about the Constitution???)
Wow, expect crickets from liberals on this.
But cheer up libs. You can always rant, rave and keep on blaming Bush!
If Bush hadn't destabilized Iraq by invading and destroying it, ISIS probably wouldn't be there. Saddam would have wiped his ass with them.
Yep. And Iran wouldn't be so emboldened. They should have sent Bush a Thank You card.
This was all predictable. This was all predicted.
.
The first and second gulf war started with bombing campaigns as well. Why wouldn't the third? I am shocked and awed by the notion "oh, it's only bombing", as if that doesn't engender hatred and loathing on the part of the targets. And then 20 years from now, some orphans from the current campaign will fly planes into buildings, or detonate nukes in an american city, and the Usians will wonder why. Lather, rinse, repeat.Well, we are not sending 500,000 troops into Afghanistan and Arabia under Obama so it's not the same thing.
That being said, I think that you're 100% correct that the US has no legitimate interest in another war over there; only to install yet another American hating theocrat as a figurehead that will thankus for the gallons of American blood spilled and then kindly tell us to leave...only to start the whole process of dictatorship over again.
The only way to stop the cycle is not to get trolled into spinning the wheel.
What amazes me is here is a guy who ran against the war in Iraq, and here he is repeating the same mistakes. Bush was an idiot, no doubt, but what do you call someone who sees that, and then willfully does the same damn thing?
Isis, or Isil, is not a real threat to the US. The US has no legitimate interest in getting sucked into another sand war.
