• 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

ObamacareFail said:
That was obviously a lie by Nixon....however it still does not rise to the hilarity of "I dodged sniper fire in Bosnia". Nixon was a crook. Hillary needs to check into a funny farm. Get the point?
Click to expand...

It's colossally worse OMFG! Dude, you ain't right.
 
iguanaman said:
You need to go back a bit further. ISIS formed from members of Al Qaeda in Iraq, a group that was started to kill Americans in Iraq. Who sent those Americans to Iraq?
Click to expand...

As already posted, by 2009 they were defeated and in check.
 
ObamacareFail said:
I asked for at least one specific GWB lie and you give me a link to a leftwing nutjob site. I'm still waiting.
Click to expand...

Honestly, that's your comeback? Seriously? Speaking of fail.
 
ObamacareFail said:
Anyone using the term chickenhawk has no credibility. It is a patently stupid term that suggests that anyone who does not beat down the door at a recruiters office and demand to get into a war does not have a right to support a given military action.
Click to expand...

Honestly, you are headed to ignore.
 
ObamacareFail said:
Perhaps if you try a bit harder, you can get a point. If we had left a contingent of troops behind in Iraq, 10,000, perhaps 20,000, as we have done in most other wars where we have spilled so much blood, ISIS never would have gained a foothold. I really don't care whether you think we should have went into Iraq or not. Politicians make those choices. The point is that if we get into a war, especially one involving regime change, we should stick around long enough to make sure the military we leave behind can take care of business.
Click to expand...

The Govt. Bush left in Iraq could not function without us and that is what you neocons are calling a victory? They not only could not function but they also hated us and would not even guarantee that our soldiers would not be prosecuted in Iraqi courts. We spent many years training the Iraqi military only to have Maliki turn it into a sectarian hit squad that would not fight in Sunni areas unless they were murdering Sunni's in their beds. At least now that Maliki is gone there are hopes of regaining the trust of the Sunni tribes that originally vanquished Al Qaeda from Iraq. They then regrouped in Syria and became ISIS.
 
Montecresto said:
It's colossally worse OMFG! Dude, you ain't right.
Click to expand...

Nixon merely lied about not being a crook. Hillary is ready for the funny farm. And you still don't get it?
 
Top Cat said:
Honestly, that's your comeback? Seriously? Speaking of fail.
Click to expand...

You are the one hollering "Bush lied". Yet you cannot come up with one in your own words. :waiting:
 
MMC said:
Yeah it is Jog.....and the Sheik was Right about BO Peep not listening to them. Also true is about their hope for the re-awakening. As they know its the one thing that ISIS fears most.

Which would include all those Baathist tribes.




The authors also emphasise that IS is not new, but rather emerged from the ashes of Al-Qaeda in Iraq (AQI), one of the most brutal foes of the Americans following their 2003 invasion. AQI was largely defeated after the US convinced local tribes to rise up against them -- a strategy known as "The Awakening", which has deeply influenced IS strategy.

"From the beginning, they've been obsessed with the Awakening," said Hassan. "They've done everything to prevent it happening again: built sleeper cells, bought loyalty, divided communities. "They've succeeded in making internal resistance practically impossible. No tribe will fight them, because they will find themselves fighting their own brothers and cousins.".....snip~

IS has built near-impregnable base and mass appeal: new book
Click to expand...

It reminds me a little of the beginning in Vidal's Messiah.

But the real enemy for IS should be the Shiites and not us. They are are Apostates, while we are only Heathens.
 
joG said:
It reminds me a little of the beginning in Vidal's Messiah.

But the real enemy for IS should be the Shiites and not us. They are are Apostates, while we are only Heathens.
Click to expand...

That's True Jog and the way they do look at. Much of the sectarian divide as a root cause is being ignored.
 
Navy Pride said:
Different time, different era...JFK would be a Conservative today.
Click to expand...

Get serious! Ronald Reagan wouldn't even be accepted by today's wacko GOP....JFK would fit perfectly with the Democratic party of today, he would at the Republican party and shake his head....doh!
 
iguanaman said:
The Dems were intimidated and lied to in order to get their votes but I know that does not matter to you. They were told that the U.N inspectors would be allowed to complete their work. Even in hindsight you persist in supporting the failed policy of preemptive invasion of sovereign nations which is right in line with Jeb and the rest of the neocons.
Click to expand...


LOL !!!

Yes, the Democrats were gullible and weak and scared.
 
disneydude said:
The difference is that Clinton left the country in good shape. Took a deficit and turned it into a surplus. Both of the Bushes left the country in a mess. GWB much more than his father....but there certainly is not an good argument to allow another Bush into the whitehouse after the mess of the first two.
Click to expand...

Yes, but I'm not sure repealing Glass-Steagall or allowing direct-to-consumer advertising of prescription drugs was actually "leaving the country in good shape". More like "leaving a ticking time bomb" in the US economy.
 
ObamacareFail said:
Nixon merely lied about not being a crook. Hillary is ready for the funny farm. And you still don't get it?
Click to expand...

It's been made clear that I'm no fan of Hillary's. But its questionable who's ready for the funny farm if you think that Clinton embellishing a moment spent in/near a war zone is a worse offence than the president being a crook, and lying about it.
 
disneydude said:
Get serious! Ronald Reagan wouldn't even be accepted by today's wacko GOP....JFK would fit perfectly with the Democratic party of today, he would at the Republican party and shake his head....doh!
Click to expand...

Oh my! You are confused. Reagan very much would be accepted by today's GOP voting base. The RINOs would not like him, but the RINOs did not like him in 1980 either. And no...JFK would not fit in with today's democrat party. JFK was a conservative tax cutter and a hawk. Today's democrats would be calling him a "tea bagger".
 
Fenton said:
LOL !!!

Yes, the Democrats were gullible and weak and scared.
Click to expand...

Yep....they were so gullible, weak, and scared that they pushed WMDs in Iraq nearly a decade before Bush was elected president. :giggle1:
 
Montecresto said:
It's been made clear that I'm no fan of Hillary's. But its questionable who's ready for the funny farm if you think that Clinton embellishing a moment spent in/near a war zone is a worse offence than the president being a crook, and lying about it.
Click to expand...

I suppose you will never get it. We are talking of two different types of lies here. All lies are dishonest. Nixon was clearly dishonest when he said he was not a crook. Bill Clinton was clearly dishonest when he stated: "I did not have sexual relations with that woman, miss Lewinsky. Hillary Clinton was clearly dishonest when she claimed to have dodged sniper fire in Bosnia. All lies are offensive. Nixon and Bill Clinton merely lied. Hillary was in a war zone, but completely fabricated a story about dodging sniper fire. For someone on a national stage to do that is insane. And she wants to become president......leader of the free world? I think she is off her rocker. Do you get it now?
 
ObamacareFail said:
I suppose you will never get it. We are talking of two different types of lies here. All lies are dishonest. Nixon was clearly dishonest when he said he was not a crook. Bill Clinton was clearly dishonest when he stated: "I did not have sexual relations with that woman, miss Lewinsky. Hillary Clinton was clearly dishonest when she claimed to have dodged sniper fire in Bosnia. All lies are offensive. Nixon and Bill Clinton merely lied. Hillary was in a war zone, but completely fabricated a story about dodging sniper fire. For someone on a national stage to do that is insane. And she wants to become president......leader of the free world? I think she is off her rocker. Do you get it now?
Click to expand...

The fact that you can't distinguish the difference between lis that harm people, and lies that don't, doesn't surprise me!
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top Bottom