Printable View
Republicans I'm putting you on notice, this healthcare debacle is the straw that broke the camels back.
Yesterday on Reddit I saw a sea change in the attitude of "liberals" aka civilized people toward conservatives, thread after thread post after post. The general consensus was that we've done all we could do. We've presented the facts, shown you the math and made countless airtight cases in debates w you.
We reached a final conclusion, conservatives are unreasonable assholes. Just slimy, wretched, reptilian motherfuckers and should be treated accordingly. We're done debating you faggots. Oh you support industrial pollution in my drinking water then fuck you. If you'll trade thousands of dead Americans for a tax cut then fuck you. I could go on and on and on. Fuck you!
I'm out.
How long did it take most Republicans to admit the Iraq war was actually US initiated terrorism? It took years and small steps. IRAQ has WMD ==> Saddam is a bad dictator ==> It was best for long term peace ==> omg what a fuckup ==> Jesus Christ we were wrong ==> Oh well, USA USA USA. 8 years for most.
The Trump nutters are far more invested in the Donald than those invested in the Iraq war so when the train hits the wall, and it will, the division in the US will be a "tremendous disaster" for years.
Hey Republicans, fps just put you on NOTICE...
I heard recently what was supposed to be some quick carpet bombing in Mosul is now $3billion.Quote:
Originally Posted by Deal
Standard & good value.
US war machine is bipartisan though
LOL Preet Bhara: http://pokerfraudalert.com/forum/sho...-Preet-Bharara
Republicans always got a bad rap for the "Iraq has WMD" thing.Quote:
Originally Posted by Deal
Throughout the 1990s and early 2000s, Saddam was playing a frustrating hide-and-seek game with the UN regarding his WMD program.
Republicans did not invent some WMD scare in order to justify invading Iraq. In reality, Saddam had a WMD program dating back to before the 1991 Gulf War, and he kept secretly restarting the program every time after he agreed to "really stop it for good this time".
He also kept thwarting UN attempts to inspect them, dating all the way back to mid-1991. He would agree to inspections, and then either go back on the agreements or only let inspectors look at certain areas.
We will never know for sure, but I believe that Saddam had a WMD program shortly before our 2003 invasion, but dismantled it for whatever reason.
Saddam was also going to be a constant thorn in the United States' side for as long as he ruled Iraq.
The US basically had enough of him, and they felt that they had enough justification to invade, given the intelligence reports stating that WMDs existed there at the time.
Keep in mind that most centrist and left-centrist Democrats also supported the 2003 Iraq invasion, which gave rise to John Kerry's infamous 2004 quote, "I voted for it before I voted against it."
Quote:
Originally Posted by Dan DruffRepublicans always got a bad rap for the "Iraq has WMD" thing.Quote:
Originally Posted by Deal
Throughout the 1990s and early 2000s, Saddam was playing a frustrating hide-and-seek game with the UN regarding his WMD program.
Republicans did not invent some WMD scare in order to justify invading Iraq. In reality, Saddam had a WMD program dating back to before the 1991 Gulf War, and he kept secretly restarting the program every time after he agreed to "really stop it for good this time".
He also kept thwarting UN attempts to inspect them, dating all the way back to mid-1991. He would agree to inspections, and then either go back on the agreements or only let inspectors look at certain areas.
We will never know for sure, but I believe that Saddam had a WMD program shortly before our 2003 invasion, but dismantled it for whatever reason.
Saddam was also going to be a constant thorn in the United States' side for as long as he ruled Iraq.
The US basically had enough of him, and they felt that they had enough justification to invade, given the intelligence reports stating that WMDs existed there at the time.
Keep in mind that most centrist and left-centrist Democrats also supported the 2003 Iraq invasion, which gave rise to John Kerry's infamous 2004 quote, "I voted for it before I voted against it."
This is a very homogenized narrative.
The part that did the damage was right wing neo-conservatives deliberately doctoring/misrepresenting CIA intel that bolstered their preferred narrative, and then using that wholly invalid intel to rope politicians into backing a literal invasion of a sovereign power.
It was a combination of Bush Jr being a blood thirsty yahoo and his misguided belief that somewhere out there, there was a war we could 'win' in the traditional context of 'military victory', and that doing so would help America feel like it could somehow recover from 9/11 and, in the process, somehow repair the damage it did to Bush's legacy.
Trying to somehow lay blame at the foot of moderate Democrats is an act of belligerent ignorance; they were lied to, you know they were lied to, and yet you seem oddly unwilling to assign responsibility to the liars, even today.
Yea druff don't forget the part where the United States gave Saddam the "weapons of mass Destruction".
Flynn's attorney apparently didnt like the view from under that bus and has stated unequivocally that the Trump administration was totally aware that Flynn was acting as a foreign agent as far back as the campaign.
Noooooo dude, he's changed, he's on ellen he's painting vets, guys done a complete 180Quote:
Originally Posted by sonatine
fuckin dry drunks man..
Reverend Al Sharpten, when asked about the whole WMD deal and Sadam said something to the effect, no cat who actully has an arsenal like he was accused of, is found hiding in a hole with a.22
George W. Bush was not a bloodthirsty yahoo. That's a narrative the left likes to push, but an incorrect one.Quote:
Originally Posted by sonatineQuote:
Originally Posted by Dan Druff
This is a very homogenized narrative.
The part that did the damage was right wing neo-conservatives deliberately doctoring/misrepresenting CIA intel that bolstered their preferred narrative, and then using that wholly invalid intel to rope politicians into backing a literal invasion of a sovereign power.
It was a combination of Bush Jr being a blood thirsty yahoo and his misguided belief that somewhere out there, there was a war we could 'win' in the traditional context of 'military victory', and that doing so would help America feel like it could somehow recover from 9/11 and, in the process, somehow repair the damage it did to Bush's legacy.
Trying to somehow lay blame at the foot of moderate Democrats is an act of belligerent ignorance; they were lied to, you know they were lied to, and yet you seem oddly unwilling to assign responsibility to the liars, even today.
Like him or hate him, but George W. Bush always believed he was doing the right thing. I've said before that GW Bush and Bill Clinton were opposites regarding how they governed. Clinton was too obsessed with what the people wanted at the time, often letting popular sentiment dictate policy (rather than what he actually thought was right). Bush was too obsessed with what he thought was right, and ignored popular sentiment (also a problem, for obvious reasons).
Bush went to war in Iraq fully believing there were WMDs there, and that America needed to get Saddam out of power.
It wasn't "to win a war in the traditional sense", "to finish what Daddy started", or anything else like that.
Follow Bush's entire career, and you will see a man who believed what he was doing was right and necessary, even when he was actually wrong.
I'm not blaming the moderate Democrats, but rather stating that the Iraq war of 2003 was not a Republican war. All but the left wing of the Democratic Party (who oppose ANY war) were for the invasion at the time.
Regarding the reason for the invasion of Iraq, honestly Saddam gave us tons of them in the prior 12 years. Even if you want to say that this reason wasn't a good one, and that the CIA intel was exaggerated for political purposes, the bottom line was that Saddam was giving the middle finger to the US ever since the end of the Gulf War, and showing no signs of keeping to any of his agreements. Saddam was in fact getting more and more brazen, as he was no longer in fear of actually being invaded. We made so many threats in the prior 12 years that he wasn't taking any of them seriously. I'm sure Saddam was more surprised than anything else when the US finally took action against him.
Quote:
Originally Posted by Dan DruffGeorge W. Bush was not a bloodthirsty yahoo. That's a narrative the left likes to push, but an incorrect one.Quote:
Originally Posted by sonatine
Like him or hate him, but George W. Bush always believed he was doing the right thing. I've said before that GW Bush and Bill Clinton were opposites regarding how they governed. Clinton was too obsessed with what the people wanted at the time, often letting popular sentiment dictate policy (rather than what he actually thought was right). Bush was too obsessed with what he thought was right, and ignored popular sentiment (also a problem, for obvious reasons).
Bush went to war in Iraq fully believing there were WMDs there, and that America needed to get Saddam out of power.
It wasn't "to win a war in the traditional sense", "to finish what Daddy started", or anything else like that.
Follow Bush's entire career, and you will see a man who believed what he was doing was right and necessary, even when he was actually wrong.
I'm not blaming the moderate Democrats, but rather stating that the Iraq war of 2003 was not a Republican war. All but the left wing of the Democratic Party (who oppose ANY war) were for the invasion at the time.
Regarding the reason for the invasion of Iraq, honestly Saddam gave us tons of them in the prior 12 years. Even if you want to say that this reason wasn't a good one, and that the CIA intel was exaggerated for political purposes, the bottom line was that Saddam was giving the middle finger to the US ever since the end of the Gulf War, and showing no signs of keeping to any of his agreements. Saddam was in fact getting more and more brazen, as he was no longer in fear of actually being invaded. We made so many threats in the prior 12 years that he wasn't taking any of them seriously. I'm sure Saddam was more surprised than anything else when the US finally took action against him.
So, you back the invasion of Israel then?
Quote:
Originally Posted by WiganerQuote:
Originally Posted by Dan Druff
So, you back the invasion of Israel then?
And North Korea? And Russia? And Turkey? And Venezuela? Etc etc etc.
It's on tape, you decide.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=2LcP4R9_QkA
I agree that Dubya *believed* he was doing the right thing. This unmistakable issue is that he was easily manipulated *and* too stupid to understand the strategic disaster that would ensue from his gungho policy regarding Iraq. So, give him props for meaning well, but a big fat F for believing in a stupid strategy.Quote:
Originally Posted by Dan DruffGeorge W. Bush was not a bloodthirsty yahoo. That's a narrative the left likes to push, but an incorrect one.Quote:
Originally Posted by sonatine
Like him or hate him, but George W. Bush always believed he was doing the right thing. I've said before that GW Bush and Bill Clinton were opposites regarding how they governed. Clinton was too obsessed with what the people wanted at the time, often letting popular sentiment dictate policy (rather than what he actually thought was right). Bush was too obsessed with what he thought was right, and ignored popular sentiment (also a problem, for obvious reasons).
Bush went to war in Iraq fully believing there were WMDs there, and that America needed to get Saddam out of power.
It wasn't "to win a war in the traditional sense", "to finish what Daddy started", or anything else like that.
Follow Bush's entire career, and you will see a man who believed what he was doing was right and necessary, even when he was actually wrong.
I'm not blaming the moderate Democrats, but rather stating that the Iraq war of 2003 was not a Republican war. All but the left wing of the Democratic Party (who oppose ANY war) were for the invasion at the time.
Regarding the reason for the invasion of Iraq, honestly Saddam gave us tons of them in the prior 12 years. Even if you want to say that this reason wasn't a good one, and that the CIA intel was exaggerated for political purposes, the bottom line was that Saddam was giving the middle finger to the US ever since the end of the Gulf War, and showing no signs of keeping to any of his agreements. Saddam was in fact getting more and more brazen, as he was no longer in fear of actually being invaded. We made so many threats in the prior 12 years that he wasn't taking any of them seriously. I'm sure Saddam was more surprised than anything else when the US finally took action against him.
if you believe being a bloodthirsty yahoo is 'the right thing', those two things stop being mutually exclusive.
Uhhh... The US *was* taking action against him before the invasion. It was enforcing two no-fly zones, and essentially supporting Kurdish Iraq as a quasi-separate government. And the weapons inspections were jacked up in intensity before the invasion, only to find nothing.Quote:
Originally Posted by Dan DruffGeorge W. Bush was not a bloodthirsty yahoo. That's a narrative the left likes to push, but an incorrect one.Quote:
Originally Posted by sonatine
Like him or hate him, but George W. Bush always believed he was doing the right thing. I've said before that GW Bush and Bill Clinton were opposites regarding how they governed. Clinton was too obsessed with what the people wanted at the time, often letting popular sentiment dictate policy (rather than what he actually thought was right). Bush was too obsessed with what he thought was right, and ignored popular sentiment (also a problem, for obvious reasons).
Bush went to war in Iraq fully believing there were WMDs there, and that America needed to get Saddam out of power.
It wasn't "to win a war in the traditional sense", "to finish what Daddy started", or anything else like that.
Follow Bush's entire career, and you will see a man who believed what he was doing was right and necessary, even when he was actually wrong.
I'm not blaming the moderate Democrats, but rather stating that the Iraq war of 2003 was not a Republican war. All but the left wing of the Democratic Party (who oppose ANY war) were for the invasion at the time.
Regarding the reason for the invasion of Iraq, honestly Saddam gave us tons of them in the prior 12 years. Even if you want to say that this reason wasn't a good one, and that the CIA intel was exaggerated for political purposes, the bottom line was that Saddam was giving the middle finger to the US ever since the end of the Gulf War, and showing no signs of keeping to any of his agreements. Saddam was in fact getting more and more brazen, as he was no longer in fear of actually being invaded. We made so many threats in the prior 12 years that he wasn't taking any of them seriously. I'm sure Saddam was more surprised than anything else when the US finally took action against him.
Also, it was *definitely* a Republican *administration* war, with *complete* support of the GOP in Congress. The moderate Dems caved because they pussied out, fearing to look "weak" versus the saber-rattling Republicans. Because if Gore had been president instead of Bush, his administration would *not* have been planning to overthrow Saddam Hussein's regime in the wake of the 9/11 attacks. He would have kept the focus on Afghanistan, and not gone half-cocked on the wildly dangerous strategy that Dubya and his blundering fellow neocons perpetrated.