• 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!

500m taxpayer dollars down the drain

Lord of Planar said:
It was destabilized long before that. Things were stable until our CIA helped replace Iraq and Iran's leaders before the Iraq/Iran war in the 70's. These leaders who we all say are bad have done a decent job of holding the fanatics in check, until we intervene like in Libya. Once a strong leader is deposed, the radicals break loose.

President Bush didn't want to go in. All along the planning stages, they gave Saddam outs, because they know once that bottle was uncapped, the nation could fall apart.
Click to expand...

Right, that is why prior to the war they claimed we "We will in fact be greeted as liberators" and that the war would would largely pay for itself. They dying for a reason to go in it was part of their whole misguided notion of democratizing the Middle East.

You are normally a pretty reasonable person (AGW aside ;) ), but this is nothing but revisionist turd polishing you are engaging in.
 
jmotivator said:
So is the US under threatened or not by the Middle East? It only seems to be when it suits the narrative.

It seems rather strange to downgrade a war where the US suffered nearly 60,000 KIA and then play up the threat to the US you perceive from the Iraq war when the majority of US civilian casualties in the War on Terror can two years before the Iraq war.
Click to expand...

I am not saying the Vietnam was was not a terrible mistake. I am saying the consequences of it in terms of U.S. foreign policy and threats to the United States were not as bad. The casualties were much worse. Of course if you want to compare the war in Iraq which was based on lies to the war in Vietnam which was based on lies, then I am certainly fine with that. Go ahead, proceed...
 
SouthernDemocrat said:
Right, that is why prior to the war they claimed we "We will in fact be greeted as liberators" and that the war would would largely pay for itself. They dying for a reason to go in it was part of their whole misguided notion of democratizing the Middle East.

You are normally a pretty reasonable person (AGW aside ;) ), but this is nothing but revisionist turd polishing you are engaging in.
Click to expand...

You cherry pick one argument out of many...
 
Lord of Planar said:
LOL...

You do have a comprehension problem!

Now the story is hyped, but there is truth in it.

I said:

What a slippery slope if you are going to allow a media outlet to pick and choose what leaders we take out, because there are at least 50 dictators that are far worse the Qaddafi was.

Do you really want us to police the world with our standards, or just the countries the Washington Post reports on?

And you have the audacity to call me misinformed?
Click to expand...

You ARE misinformed for blaming the U.S. It wasn't even our choice really, the Europeans made it for us. They made the 1st move and our membership in NATO obligated us to join in. But being a patriot you blame the U.S. for everything but only when a Democrat is in the oval office.
 
Last edited:
Lord of Planar said:
No, all he had to do was comply with the UN sanctions. It was Clinton that signed the order for Regime change in Iraq.


I have heard that too... From the media. Maybe initially he did. However, if you have read Michael Morell's book on the subject, you will see that Bush only wanted to invade as a last resort. He really did think Saddam had weapons and was afraid they would fall into terrorists hands.
Click to expand...

He did comply. U.N inspectors were in Iraq when Bush ordered the invasion. Bush invaded because Saddam could not produce the WMD's he didn't have. LOL about blaming Clinton..he had Saddam hog tied.
 
OK, you guys seem to argue that we helped get rid of Qaddafi to help the people of Libya. The 2010 HDI index for Libya had it placed as the 53rd best in the world. the 2015 report has Libya down to 94th.

You liberals should keep that in mind when thinking Hillary is presidential material. She was for ousting Qaddafi 110%.

Great improvement! Fast fall towards the bottom!

Human Development Report 2010; page 151 (142).

Human Development Report 2015; page 223 (209).

this is what the UN say the HDI measures:

The Human Development Index (HDI) is a summary measure of average achievement in key dimensions of human development: a long and healthy life, being knowledgeable and have a decent standard of living.
Click to expand...

Human Development Index (HDI) | Human Development Reports
 
iguanaman said:
You ARE misinformed for blaming the U.S. It wasn't even our choice really, the Europeans made it for us. They made the 1st move and our membership in NATO obligated us to join in. But being a patriot you blame the U.S. for everything but only when a Democrat is in the oval office.
Click to expand...
LOL...


People keep saying i am misinformed, by using false information as proof...

Link please.

NATO matter???

Link please...

You are misinformed. not I...

It was a UN matter, and it did not obligate us to vote yes on the matter. We should have had the balls to veto the action.

Permanent members:

A-China
Y-France
A-Russian Federation
Y-United Kingdom
Y-United States

Non-permenant members:

Y-Bosnia and Herzegovina
A-Germany
Y-Portugal
A-Brazil
A-India
Y-South Africa
Y-Colombia
Y-Lebanon
Y-Gabon
Y-Nigeria

Security Council Approves ?No-Fly Zone? over Libya, Authorizing ?All Necessary Measures? to Protect Civilians, by Vote of 10 in Favour with 5 Abstentions | Meetings Coverage and Press Releases
 
iguanaman said:
He did comply. U.N inspectors were in Iraq when Bush ordered the invasion. Bush invaded because Saddam could not produce the WMD's he didn't have. LOL about blaming Clinton..he had Saddam hog tied.
Click to expand...

Yes, him complying is the common fairy tale people like to believe.

It is a lie by pundits.

You are wrong about so many things.

Maybe you should stop and consider maybe you are wrong about this too?

NATO...

LOL...

Keep believing the pundits, and you will never know the truth of world matters.
 
Last edited:
Lord of Planar said:
Yes, him complying is the common fairy tale people like to believe.

It is a lie by pundits.

You are wrong about so many things.

Maybe you should stop and consider maybe you are wrong about this too?

NATO...

LOL...
Click to expand...

You can go to your grave praising Bush but you won't get many to believe you. Look how voters treated his brother......
 
iguanaman said:
You can go to your grave praising Bush but you won't get many to believe you. Look how voters treated his brother......
Click to expand...
I don't praise bush.

I just hate the lies spread by partisans.

My God...

You guys are part of the problem. You see something believable, that fits your views, and you run with it as fact. Without verifying.

Please, show me a link where I ever praised Bush.
 
Lord of Planar said:
I don't praise bush.

I just hate the lies spread by partisans.

My God...

You guys are part of the problem. You see something believable, that fits your views, and you run with it as fact. Without verifying.

Please, show me a link where I ever praised Bush.
Click to expand...

LOL You DEFEND him in practically every post. If that's not love I don't know what is. I could say the same thing about your "problem" if I just leave out "believable".
 
iguanaman said:
LOL You DEFEND him in practically every post. If that's not love I don't know what is. I could say the same thing about your "problem" if I just leave out "believable".
Click to expand...

You said "praise."

Defending the truth doesn't necessarily mean defending the individual.

I think you should stop for a moment, and consider your words very carefully before responding again.

Words have meaning. They don't mean what ever you want them to.

If you wish for me to stop correcting your ignorance, then I can do so.

Remain ignorant if you like.
 
Lord of Planar said:
Defending the truth doesn't necessarily mean defending the individual.
Click to expand...

Why do people think that correcting someone is supporting their opposed viewpoint?

If a someone keeps going around saying 1 + 1 = 3, and no one ever corrects them, how many other people over the years get misinformation? For the betterment of society, isn't it better to demand the truth?

Maybe not.

Maybe ignorance is bliss...
 
SenorXm/Sirius said:
I disagree. When the Bush admin was floating around lies about Iraq/Saddam being involved with AQ and 9/11, I knew then they were looking for any reason to invade Iraq. It was only a matter of time.
Click to expand...

Obviously invading where the real culprits were in Saudi Arabia was politically impossible. The Bush administration would have been at war with the entire Muslim world, a war that would have torn the peace of the world apart for decades.

Bush knew he wouldn't get a second term without a big pile of Muslim bodies to present to the geographically challenged US electorate. Iraq was the perfect patsy and had been decided upon within a day of 9/11. It worked like a treat. Bush got his second term and vengeance was served. Ultimately few cared that it was the wrong Muslims that paid the price
 
SenorXm/Sirius said:
Looks like Bush's war did that anyway.
Click to expand...

Small potatoes compared to the consequences of invading Saudi Arabia.

Little wonder why the report on the 9/11 attack blacked out entire chapters regarding Saudi involvement.

They were going to make damn sure you weren't going to find out it was really them :(
 
SouthernDemocrat said:
I am not saying the Vietnam was was not a terrible mistake. I am saying the consequences of it in terms of U.S. foreign policy and threats to the United States were not as bad. The casualties were much worse. Of course if you want to compare the war in Iraq which was based on lies to the war in Vietnam which was based on lies, then I am certainly fine with that. Go ahead, proceed...
Click to expand...

I think you need to reevaluate the effects of both wars. And I won't entertain your dumbed down bumper sticker comparisons.
 
flogger said:
Little wonder why the report on the 9/11 attack blacked out entire chapters regarding Saudi involvement.
Click to expand...

Not good to assume unknowns as facts. Especially if you have not considered all the possibilities as to why things get redacted.

What if your assumptions are wrong?
 
Deuce said:
"It is estimated"

Translation: Pulled a number out of my ass and hope everyone will accept it without question.
Click to expand...

its in the neighborhood a quarter trillion dollars in US spending since 2003. that's per the GAO and the CRS.
I don't know anything about floggers claim but that much money would go quite a long ways in places like central Africa.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top Bottom