Joe Biden "voted against the first Gulf War. He opposed the surge. He wanted to parti

DarkWizard12 · 09-03-08, 09:53 PM

Talk about judgement eh?

PolitiFact | Only as a last resort

Quortix · 09-03-08, 10:46 PM

Quote:

Joe Biden "voted against the first Gulf War"

So did almost all the democrats at the time. It was too soon and they argued, they could work the issue diplomatically. But the neo-con machine was at full throttle, urging to fill the void created after the fall of the Soviet Union and literally built a regional base right smack in the middle of the Middle East. One for Biden.

Quote:

Joe Biden "opposed the surge."

Perhaps you are one of those cretins who still believe the "surge" was the main reason for the decrease in violence? I haven't been long on this forum, but I suppose this issue must have been discussed at some point. Another one for Biden.

Quote:

Joe Biden "wanted to partition Iraq."

Well, not the conventional way that appeals to a simpleton mind. A soft-partition as he put it, the idea “is to maintain a united Iraq by decentralizing it, giving each ethno-religious group ... room to run its own affairs, while leaving the central government in charge of common interests.” Remember this was suggested back in mid-2006 where internecine conflict was still raging and reconciliation wasn't seen as a viable solution.

P/N · 09-04-08, 01:06 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Quortix

So did almost all the democrats at the time. It was too soon and they argued, they could work the issue diplomatically. But the neo-con machine was at full throttle, urging to fill the void created after the fall of the Soviet Union and literally built a regional base right smack in the middle of the Middle East. One for Biden.

Ummm, Saddam invaded another country. We went into Iraq with the blessing of the UN and nearly every other country in the world. Saudi Arabia even let us attack him from their own soil (something they did not do during the 2nd Gulf War). And Bush 41 was a neo-con? I think Bush 41 was far from a neo-con, and I think most liberals would agree with me on that point. If he was a neo-con, he would have marched into Baghdad and finished the job. Instead he stuck to the UN mandate and pulled us out of Iraq upon Saddam's surrender. Obviously hindsight is 20/20 and we should have taken him out in 1992, but your argument against the first Gulf War is full of holes you could fly the Space Shuttle through. Minus 1 for Biden.

Captain America · 09-04-08, 01:17 AM

Bush 41 was no neocon. And I supported his gulf War 100%. And what a fine job we did kicking Saddam's ass.

Now Bush 43, that's a whole 'nother story. He wasn't nothing BUT a neo-con IMO. But don't get me started. I'm still doing the happy dance over tonight's convention.

(Also, I am so excited to be FINALLY talking about Bush 43 in past-tense.)

Sergeant Stinger1 · 09-04-08, 02:03 AM

I cannot see how anyone could have been against the first Iraq invasion OR the attack on Afgain. after 911.
The rest of the story will go down in history as the BIGGGGGEST **** UP EVER by any President to date.
-
Bush 1 was too smart to go all the way into Iraq.

rightwinghour · 09-04-08, 11:41 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Sergeant Stinger1

I cannot see how anyone could have been against the first Iraq invasion.

From a Constitutional standpoint, we had no reason to invade Iraq the first time.

American · 09-04-08, 12:04 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Captain America

Bush 41 was no neocon. And I supported his gulf War 100%. And what a fine job we did kicking Saddam's ass.

Now Bush 43, that's a whole 'nother story. He wasn't nothing BUT a neo-con IMO. But don't get me started. I'm still doing the happy dance over tonight's convention.

(Also, I am so excited to be FINALLY talking about Bush 43 in past-tense.)

You are wrong. Neocons came from the Democratic Party in the 1970's. That philosophy hasn't change till the present.

Captain America · 09-04-08, 12:51 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by American

You are wrong. Neocons came from the Democratic Party in the 1970's. That philosophy hasn't change till the present.

Where they came from and where they are sitting now are two different things altogether my brutha from anutha mutha.

I refer to neocons as those who feel that it is our obligation to nation build, police the world, and assure that all global decisions should be made, first and foremost, to support the interests of the US, by force if necessary.

My definition could be totally wrong, in which case I will stand corrected. But that's MY definition of a neocon and Bush 43/Cheney/Rumsfeld fits it like a glove, democrat or not.

Quortix · 09-04-08, 11:05 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by P/N

Ummm, Saddam invaded another country. We went into Iraq with the blessing of the UN and nearly every other country in the world. Saudi Arabia even let us attack him from their own soil (something they did not do during the 2nd Gulf War). And Bush 41 was a neo-con? I think Bush 41 was far from a neo-con, and I think most liberals would agree with me on that point. If he was a neo-con, he would have marched into Baghdad and finished the job. Instead he stuck to the UN mandate and pulled us out of Iraq upon Saddam's surrender. Obviously hindsight is 20/20 and we should have taken him out in 1992, but your argument against the first Gulf War is full of holes you could fly the Space Shuttle through. Minus 1 for Biden.

God you sound so gullible. I give up... You win. Everything is so black and white with you people. I never said Bush was a neo-con; the "machine" works from the layers beneath. You really think the hostage crisis of 80's was Carter's fault? Think again. Just ask your buddy Kissinger.

Sergeant Stinger1 · 09-14-08, 12:28 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by rightwinghour

From a Constitutional standpoint, we had no reason to invade Iraq the first time.

-
Auuuu,Duaaaaaa, we did not invade Iraq the first time. We drove them out of Kuwait and chased them up inside Iraq to keep our oil interest going.