• This is a political forum that is non-biased/non-partisan and treats every person's position on topics equally. This debate forum is not aligned to any political party. In today's politics, many ideas are split between and even within all the political parties. Often we find ourselves agreeing on one platform but some topics break our mold. We are here to discuss them in a civil political debate. If this is your first visit to our political forums, be sure to check out the RULES. Registering for debate politics is necessary before posting. Register today to participate - it's free!

George W. Bush Is Intervening in Iraq—Again

Which lie would that be?

Pick one. The whole lead up to the invasion of Iraq was nothing more than lies and manipulation. Cheney/Rumsfield and Bush in a pawn role, say the opportunity to exploit the public fear after 9/11. They preyed on the weak and got the war that they had sought for decades. It was all based on lies and deceit. Then again....I suspect that you probably still buy the whole "mission accomplished" rhetoric.
 
Bush didn't lie.

Repeateding 10 year old false naratives is a bit immature, don't you think ?

Democrats claimed Saddam had WMD and had intentions to go Nuclear before Bush ever stepped into the White House.

Not to mention they voted FOR the Iraq resolution.

The left desperately wants us to forget about all of that.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Cwqh4wQPoQk
 
Do you have an example of that working? How does one destroy religious extremism of pandemic proportions?

It worked in WW2.
 
This is a good place to start. It lays out very clearly (From Bush's own staff members) how Cheney and Rumsfield had tried the previous decade trying to convince the first Bush to implement their neo-con agenda to no avail. They needed a pawn in the whitehouse....someone with the intelligence of a thimble and they got that in GWB. It shows very clearly the media barrage that occurred after 911 where the Bush administration layed the groundwork to "justify" the Iraq invasion, linking it rather tenuously to 911.
But...I don't know why I'm wasting my time. People like you will continue to believe what you want to believe. "Mission Accomlished".....right?

Break out the tin foil hats.
 
How so? And how does that apply to today in the ME?

What do you mean, how so? Were the Nazis not destroyed?

It applies, because we need to be more aggressive against the islamofacists.
 
the lead up to the continuance of the war in Iraq is well documented.... all the reason we went back in are listed.

it is simple rhetoric to declare it's all based on lies... there's very little truth in such rhetoric.
when faced with the documented facts, the rhetoric, as it should, dissolves into a puddle of piss and spittle.

my opposition to Bush , in terms of Iraq, have always stemmed on how he decided to fight the war, not the reasons he decided to fight... the reasons were valid.

in any case, it's pretty stupid to whine about a former president doing what he can, in his limited capacity, to help out in an effort such as this.... I cannot, for the life of me, understand opposition to such.... unless, of course, these folks are opposed to the notion of fighting ISIS at all.
 
Agree. However, the days of committing our troops in large numbers to the ME are over. ME states will have to finally step up to the plate to confront the challenges in their own back yard. American troops can defeat any armed threat, but they can't secure a lasting peace/solution. Only the total commitment of ME states can produce that.

However, just as with Germany in the lead up to WW2, if those nation's ultimately fail to handle the problems in their own back yards, we will be drawn into it whether we like it or not. Just think how much small a conflict WW2 would have been if we had joined in and helped shut Hitler down a couple years sooner then we did.
 
What do you mean, how so? Were the Nazis not destroyed?

It applies, because we need to be more aggressive against the islamofacists.

Nazi's were NOT religious extremists ...they were anti religion. They slaughtered on racial lines, not religious, Jews primarily, but Catholics, Poles, blacks and whatever...
 
Like telling Dubya he's no longer POTUS. And then tell him to stfu and go back to ranching.

At this time Bush is the closest thing to a president we apparently have.

Obama may not be capable of dealing with ISIS, but others are and whomever the next POTUS is will have to deal with them.

Over time, this will be made clear to you.
 
If we had won, there would be no need to go back. What you're talking about is an occupation that never ends, which even Bush wasn't in favor of.

The problem was we left too soon-and we did THAT for Obamas personal political benefit in a presidential election. :2wave:
 
Pick one. The whole lead up to the invasion of Iraq was nothing more than lies and manipulation. Cheney/Rumsfield and Bush in a pawn role, say the opportunity to exploit the public fear after 9/11. They preyed on the weak and got the war that they had sought for decades. It was all based on lies and deceit. Then again....I suspect that you probably still buy the whole "mission accomplished" rhetoric.

Do you ever answer with specifics? If you are so certain that Bush lied.....give an example or move on. Nobody is taking your accusations seriously, because you do not seem able to back them up.
 
What do you mean, how so? Were the Nazis not destroyed?

It applies, because we need to be more aggressive against the islamofacists.

So your carefully constructed analysis of the situation in the ME is that it is exactly as that of Nazi Germany? Therefore if we fight it just like Nazi Germany we will win? Do I have that right?

As McCain would say, this sounds like more of a goal than a strategy.

I tend to view Islam as a cancer to western liberalism, very similar to communism during the cold war. You deal with ideological cancers by isolating them and containing their spread. The cancer then eats itself. After eating itself, we could perhaps reengage with rational players again.
 
Good for him.

As much as GWB made mistakes [what president hasn't] he has been silent too long.

I read this and weep..



...as it tells me that the Obama administration has no intentions of defeating ISIS, the military's hands are tied and there is no goal

To defeat ISIS means Obama will be admitting he made a mistake in pulling out too soon.
We know Obama is incapable of admitting his mistakes-this is just part of a long demonstrated pattern of ignorance.
 
the lead up to the continuance of the war in Iraq is well documented.... all the reason we went back in are listed.

it is simple rhetoric to declare it's all based on lies... there's very little truth in such rhetoric.
when faced with the documented facts, the rhetoric, as it should, dissolves into a puddle of piss and spittle.

my opposition to Bush , in terms of Iraq, have always stemmed on how he decided to fight the war, not the reasons he decided to fight... the reasons were valid.

in any case, it's pretty stupid to whine about a former president doing what he can, in his limited capacity, to help out in an effort such as this.... I cannot, for the life of me, understand opposition to such.... unless, of course, these folks are opposed to the notion of fighting ISIS at all.

To the Obama world this is an insult to the don.

Netanyahu is evil because he dared "school" the idiot new president, and his address to congress becomes an international incident with petty aides attacking a world leader.

It's not his skin color but the lack of it's thickness we are dealing with. Any other president would have asked for input long before this. It's not like Bush is unfamiliar with the players...
 
I'm sorry. You obviously don't know the difference between direct facts from the people who were actively involved and opinions.

You didn't provide any facts or proof of anything. But I appreciate the aggressive tenor of your nonsense.
 
The problem was we left too soon-and we did THAT for Obamas personal political benefit in a presidential election. :2wave:

Spy Agencies Say Iraq War Hurting U.S. Terror Fight

Network News

Sunday, September 24, 2006

Note the date, and stop peddling lies!!


The U.S. invasion and occupation of Iraq has increased the number of terrorist groups worldwide and "made the overall terrorism problem worse," a U.S. intelligence official said in a secret study.

http://www.cbsnews.com/news/report-iraq-war-made-terror-worse/
 
However, just as with Germany in the lead up to WW2, if those nation's ultimately fail to handle the problems in their own back yards, we will be drawn into it whether we like it or not. Just think how much small a conflict WW2 would have been if we had joined in and helped shut Hitler down a couple years sooner then we did.

I think it is a mistake to compare Nazi Germany (a large country, with a powerful military, a singular national vision of conquest, etc) to the chaotic disjointed situation of the ME. I really don't see any reason for us to go into the ME and try to 'fix' it. It is possible to contain the problem if the world works together to do so. I think that would be more effective and cost us less in manpower and financial cost. That doesn't mean we shouldn't be involved in the region, it just means that there is no military solution to an ideological problem.
 
Spy Agencies Say Iraq War Hurting U.S. Terror Fight

Network News

Sunday, September 24, 2006

Note the date, and stop peddling lies!!

Yeah we all know the left wanted to cut and run in 06 as well. Bush actually led, and defeated them, passing that on to Obama until he left for politics.

This is the same situation. You dont fight evil by appeasing it, and ISIS is the most evil thing Ive seen in my lifetime.

Courage-get some.
 
Yeah we all know the left wanted to cut and run in 06 as well. Bush actually led, and defeated them, passing that on to Obama until he left for politics.

This is the same situation. You dont fight evil by appeasing it, and ISIS is the most evil thing Ive seen in my lifetime.

Courage-get some.

So your premise is that we go in on humanitarian concerns alone?
 
So your carefully constructed analysis of the situation in the ME is that it is exactly as that of Nazi Germany? Therefore if we fight it just like Nazi Germany we will win? Do I have that right?

As McCain would say, this sounds like more of a goal than a strategy.

I tend to view Islam as a cancer to western liberalism, very similar to communism during the cold war. You deal with ideological cancers by isolating them and containing their spread. The cancer then eats itself. After eating itself, we could perhaps reengage with rational players again.

Neville Chamberlain thought the same about that little Nazi problem. He thought they could be contained and isolated.
 
So your premise is that we go in on humanitarian concerns alone?

No. It used to be (before Obama certainly but hes been highly destructive as leftism is) we would fight evil based on ideology as well.
We like freedom, not subjugation and terror.

We rightly start with our own best interests, as all nations do.

There is no shortage of reasons to go back in. And perhaps even worse if we dont-we set a precedence.

Some things are worth fighting for-eradicating ISIS is one of those things.
 
I'd argue that the Japanese warrior code was significantly influenced by religion. In addition to cultural historical influences, and govt.

Oh that was a huge part of the reason for the war..

Come on. You are comparing a honor code in the Japanese culture with Islamic extremism and the wholesale slaughter of women, children and innocents for the terror value. I missed the part where the Japanese only targeted civilians like AL-Qaeda, ISIS and all of them.....
 
Back
Top Bottom