• 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!

Rice regrets bad Iraq intelligence; defends war

I'm a Bushie.

And I need a new brain. That's not what I wanted to quote and I can't even find what it was that I disagreed with.

I'm very sorry. :(
 
The most contradicted statement from Rice, to me, was "...I still believe that the overthrow of Saddam Hussein is going to turn out to be a great strategic achievement.". Yeah? Really? Like...what kind of "strategic achievement"?

A strategy to alienate America from the rest of the world? Mission Accomplished!

A strategy to embolden AQ and BL? Mission Accomplished!

A strategy to have thousands of Americas finest men and women killed? Mission Accomplished!

A strategy to pay billions and billions of $ in cost plus to Halliburten and other non-bidded contractors? Mission Accomplished!

A strategy to keep America from capturing BL so Bush and his ilk can continue their half-shod WoT? Mission Accomplished!

Yeah...that's really worked and a BRILLIANT ****ing strategic achievement there Rice. Stoopid bitch.
 
Uh, don't you have to knida, well, you know, establish that Iraq was threatening Israel or, at least, establish that Israel perceived a threat from Iraq before you can conclude that Israel took action because Iraq was threatening her? :roll:

I can not do more than urge you to check your history book.

Please do it yourself in the future.

This 'teaser' alludes to the truth of the matter. It was written in 1998.

Israel must be prepared for a massive disproportionate retaliation against Iraq if attacked. Better than retaliation for new missile attacks, Israel should try to pre-empt Saddam's ability to endanger her ever again. Israel's failure to defend itself during the 1991 Persian Gulf War left a damaging psychological scar on the Israeli psyche. The experience of sitting helpless in sealed rooms created the climate for the Oslo appeasement. Israelis felt weak and impotent. After the war, when asked why they supported Oslo, they said they were "fatigued" after four decades of war. They wanted to stop fighting their war of survival. So they accepted the false notion of Oslo with its plan of trading land for "peace."

--- Bernard J. Shapiro, Editor

Bernard J. Shapiro is the executive Director of the Freeman Center For Strategic Studies and editor of its monthly magazine, THE MACCABEAN.

http://www.freeman.org/m_online/mar98/eisenber.htm

The reason, everyone knows, for Israel not defending itself in the 1991 war was because GHW Bush wanted to preserve the Gulf War coalition's Arab participation so Israel was urged to stay out.

During the war, as SCUD missiles fell on Israel, the USA had to work hard to keep Israel out of the war because Saddam was TRYING to provoke Israel to retaliate. He knew Israel's entry into the war could hurt the coalition.

Not much changed in regard to the threat posed by Iraq to Israel except that Saddam became more menacing and had more (Oil for Food) cash to buy more WMD materials and other armaments.

Check your history.

Here is another clue.

CBS 60 Minutes George Piro.
 
Why do you suppose I am ignorant of these "facts?"

JMak said:
Why would Israel be nervous? I don't recall Saddam making specific threats toward Israel. At least nothing that remotely resembles the degree and frequency that Iraq threatens Israel's existence.

These "facts" do not support your conclusion that Israel believed that Iraq was threatening her. Hell, if this is your argument, then Israel would perceive a threat from every Muslim state and wuld therefore be waging war against all of them. She is not. Your conclusion is bogus.

(See the answer above.)

Um, do you not know how to read? I was responding to your assertion that there was no reason to remove Saddam Hussein. I cited four justifications cited by Bush and another 23 cited by the US Congress.

Please show me where I asserted there was no reason to remove Saddam. And for the record, you MENTIONED four and twenty three but you didn't actually give a link or supply a textual excerpt.

The "everything else" being Israel feeling threatened by Iraq? You'll have to establish, first, that israel actually perceived such a threat.

Check my most recent previous post.

You're right on this. I thought it strange that the administration rarely chose to defend itself.

Do you have any ideas why they would hold back?

I think Cheney might have urged GWB to just do what he felt was right and then screw em. I.E. let the media think whatever they wanted to. Then, enjoy the job as much as possible.

What I have found whenever I have looked at the WhiteHouse.gov documents is that there are a LOT of answers to be found there if you just bother to look there for them.

What are your thoughts?

:)
 
Last edited:
A strategy to alienate America from the rest of the world? Mission Accomplished!

Yeah, because pre-Iraq war the US was beloved by all, right? I love how you guys have this kumbya vision of the world that the US radically upset in early 2003... :roll:

A strategy to embolden AQ and BL? Mission Accomplished!

Abandoning Somalia to warlords and terrorists didn't do that, huh? Treating the bombings of the US embassies, military installations, and naval vessels as common crimes didn't embolden them, huh? :rofl

A strategy to have thousands of Americas finest men and women killed? Mission Accomplished!

So no decision to go to war can ever be assessed as a "strategic victory" if it involves the deaths of US military personnel?

You're a joke.

I guess we could have spent another decade enforcing sanctions and no-fly zones, right? Maybe if we just gave the inspectors just a little more time, Hussein would have complied, right?

What pathetic Blame America First nonsense.
 
I can not do more than urge you to check your history book.

You're being foolish. Consulting the history books will not validate your assertion that Iraq threatened Israel or that Israel believed that Iraq constituted a threat justifying war.

****, our history tells us that when Israel did feel threatened it didn't ask the US to do the dirty work. Nope, they unilaterally attacked Osirak and killed an Iraqi nuke plant.

So, again, what in those history books speaks directly to Israel perceiving such a threat or Iraq presenting such a threat to israel?

Look, it's your argument to make, not mine to divine what specifically you're referring to and then arguing against it.

Please do it yourself in the future.
This 'teaser' alludes to the truth of the matter. It was written in 1998.

So, you refuse to actually establish the core of your argument. Got it.

The reason, everyone knows, for Israel not defending itself in the 1991 war was because GHW Bush wanted to preserve the Gulf War coalition's Arab participation so Israel was urged to stay out.

Who is arguing otherwise?

This doesn't speak at all, in any way at all, to your assertion that Israel felt threatened by Iraq or that Iraq directly threatened Israel and thereby motivating Israel to come to the US asking the US to take down Saddam.

Not only that, we have recent history that demonstrates that Israel will act on its accord to kill any such threat, again, see Osirak.

During the war, as SCUD missiles fell on Israel, the USA had to work hard to keep Israel out of the war because Saddam was TRYING to provoke Israel to retaliate. He knew Israel's entry into the war could hurt the coalition.

I see, so Israel waited until to 2002 to address this "threat" and ask the US to take care of it.

Why wait if the threat was so compelling that the only resolution was removing Hussein?

Not much changed in regard to the threat posed by Iraq to Israel except that Saddam became more menacing and had more (Oil for Food) cash to buy more WMD materials and other armaments.

I see, so a threat that justified war in 1991 just grew and grew until 2002 and at that point...what? What precipitated a change in Israel's thinking?

Check your history.

Lame. Weak. Pathetic.

I'm supposed to divine from some unidentified history book what you really mean?

Do you believe that you have no obligation to present an argument to substantiate your assertions? :doh

You're a joke, too.

I love this attitude by some of you that you have no obligation to actually present arguments. That your word is a legitimate substitute for actually establishing facts and drawing logical conclusions from them...

You're like a lefty BDS sufferer in this respect.
 
Your claim is that Iraq had WMDs for 20 years, but the Bush administration needed to attack Iraq in Mar 2003 to prevent the Israelis from attacking Iraq and starting a broad ME war.

Imaginative.

I think your post is much more imaginative.

I did not say that Iraq had WMD's for 20 years.

I urge you to heed my advice to JMak.

60 Minutes + George Piro
 
And I need a new brain. That's not what I wanted to quote and I can't even find what it was that I disagreed with.

I'm very sorry. :(

That's ok. No prob.

:)
 
The most contradicted statement from Rice, to me, was "...I still believe that the overthrow of Saddam Hussein is going to turn out to be a great strategic achievement.". Yeah? Really? Like...what kind of "strategic achievement"?

A strategy to alienate America from the rest of the world? Mission Accomplished!

A strategy to embolden AQ and BL? Mission Accomplished!

A strategy to have thousands of Americas finest men and women killed? Mission Accomplished!

A strategy to pay billions and billions of $ in cost plus to Halliburten and other non-bidded contractors? Mission Accomplished!

A strategy to keep America from capturing BL so Bush and his ilk can continue their half-shod WoT? Mission Accomplished!

Yeah...that's really worked and a BRILLIANT ****ing strategic achievement there Rice. Stoopid bitch.

Within the next 4 years you will distance yourself from these comments and will feel embarassed at having made them.

Afghanistan was a very smart war to avoid if possible. Armies go there to lose and leave in defeat. Bush was able to cut our losses and minimize our commitment to it in favor of doing something that WILL have an effect on the Middle East.
 
Psychotic kid kills neighbor's dog because he didn't like it barking and then when he was in front of his parents he said that in the future the neighbor will find that it was a great strategic move because with the economy the way it's going he won't have to worry about buying dog food.
:roll:
Another gout of rancid nonsense from the high-master thereof.
 
I think your post is much more imaginative.

I did not say that Iraq had WMD's for 20 years.

I urge you to heed my advice to JMak.

60 Minutes + George Piro

I didn't say you did. If Iraq had WMDs in 2003 when under your theory Israel was about to strike, Iraq would have had them for 20 years.

Iraq first obtained WMDs when the Reagan administration gave Iraq the green light to purchase chemicals to make them.
 
Yeah, because pre-Iraq war the US was beloved by all, right? I love how you guys have this kumbya vision of the world that the US radically upset in early 2003... :roll:

The lack of support from within our own nation and the reaction from our allies should have been a wake-up call for you warmongers but no. All of you were only bent on one thing...war.

Now we must set about the task of repairing our international reputation because of what Bush and your ilk have done through your warmongering desires of preemptively attacking a sovereign nation incapable of hurting us, supporting human rights violations and torture, isolationism and " bring it on" "you're either with us or against us" sabre rattling.

Abandoning Somalia to warlords and terrorists didn't do that, huh? Treating the bombings of the US embassies, military installations, and naval vessels as common crimes didn't embolden them, huh? :rofl

Apples and Oranges.

So no decision to go to war can ever be assessed as a "strategic victory" if it involves the deaths of US military personnel?

Your dehumanization of American deaths only proves your callousness and cowardly willingness to let others die for YOUR "safety".

You're a joke.

Oh, good one.

I guess we could have spent another decade enforcing sanctions and no-fly zones, right? Maybe if we just gave the inspectors just a little more time, Hussein would have complied, right?

Unfortunately we'll never know since Bush preemptively invaded a nation that was no imminent threat to us.

What pathetic Blame America First nonsense.

I believe we must take responsibility for our own actions. You're clearly incapable of doing that.
 
Last edited:
NOW....she voices her regrets. Whatsa' matter rice - trying to finagle a position with Obama?

She made her bed, now she can lie in it - a lot of Americans and other countrymen died because of this sell-out.
 
Within the next 4 years you will distance yourself from these comments and will feel embarassed at having made them.

Afghanistan was a very smart war to avoid if possible. Armies go there to lose and leave in defeat. Bush was able to cut our losses and minimize our commitment to it in favor of doing something that WILL have an effect on the Middle East.

I will never regret being against the Iraq war and now the Iraq occupation from the very beginning so you can put that non-sequitur aside.

All Bush was able to do was divert our military attention from where it should have been for what. The things I pointed out.

Now after this supposed "strategic achievement" as Rice observed the Taliban and AQ are resurgent and we are back where we started. But now we are facing an even more capable, well-armed, well financed and dedicated enemy not only in Afghanistan but in Pakistan and India. Yea. Good job Bush.

:roll:
 
NOTE TO SELF: You get real good at certain things when you do them enough times. And you get real calloused. And you grow impatient with some things. And you often get tired of doing the same things over and over, ad nauseum. And sometimes you forget certain basic facts.

Not everyone knows what you do. Some people are just coming on board and we need bright new colleagues so, instead of seeing every challenge as one to be vanquished it's better to put one's pride aside temporarily to show why someone should want to be your ally.
END OF NOTE TO SELF.

JMak, as you respond to my posts please remember that I love Bush and have been defending his administration and the war since before the 2004 election.

You're being foolish. Consulting the history books will not validate your assertion that Iraq threatened Israel or that Israel believed that Iraq constituted a threat justifying war.

****, our history tells us that when Israel did feel threatened it didn't ask the US to do the dirty work. Nope, they unilaterally attacked Osirak and killed an Iraqi nuke plant.

So, again, what in those history books speaks directly to Israel perceiving such a threat or Iraq presenting such a threat to israel?

Look, it's your argument to make, not mine to divine what specifically you're referring to and then arguing against it.

Results 1 - 10 of about 230,000 for Did Saddam threaten Israel?. (0.22 seconds)

BBC News | MIDDLE EAST | Saddam threatens Israel

Oct 4, 2000 ... Saddam threatens Israel. Iraqi's have demonstrated against the killings ...
President Saddam Hussein has said Iraq did not need to wait for ...
http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/world/middle_east/956084.stm - 36k - Cached - Similar pages

Was The Iraq War for Israel?

Sure Saddam funded Palestinian terrorists, but so did most other Arab countries
in the region. ... A unified Islamic army would be a true threat to Israel. ...
http://www.themiddleeastnow.com/iraq.html - 20k - Cached - Similar pages

Sharon warned Bush of Saddam threat | Israel | Jerusalem Post

Israel, Ayalon said, did not tell the Americans what they should do, ... In
addition, Ayalon said the Saddam threat factor was driven home by the ...
http://www.jpost.com/servlet/Satellite?pagename=JPost%2FJPArticle%2FShowFull&cid=1167467715523 - 76k - Cached - Similar pages

Saddam Threatens Israel with 'Surprise' Weapon. | Israel Faxx ...

Saddam Threatens Israel with Surprise Weapon. from Israel Faxx in News provided
by Find Articles.
http://findarticles.com/p/articles/mi_hb6672/is_/ai_n26142506 - 43k - Cached - Similar pages

Yourish.com » Saddam’s threat to the west

But I did not consider Saddam to be much of a threat to any democracy besides
Israel, and I think what we’ve learned since the invasion suggests I was right
...
http://www.yourish.com/2008/03/25/4607 - 56k - Cached - Similar pages

Israel’s New Threat from Saddam Hussein | WBUR and NPR's On Point ...

Israel has lived in fear of Iraq for more than a decade. During the Gulf War,
Saddam Hussein launched 39 Scud missiles at Israel, and held back another 25.
http://www.onpointradio.org/shows/2002/08/israels-new-threat-from-saddam-hussein/ - 30k - Cached - Similar pages

So, you refuse to actually establish the core of your argument. Got it.

You are fairly new here and I am used to the denizens at DP being possessed of certain information. My bad.

Who is arguing otherwise?

This doesn't speak at all, in any way at all, to your assertion that Israel felt threatened by Iraq or that Iraq directly threatened Israel and thereby motivating Israel to come to the US asking the US to take down Saddam.

Not only that, we have recent history that demonstrates that Israel will act on its accord to kill any such threat, again, see Osirak.

The onus was not on Israel to save US.

The Israelis COULD have launched a first strike on Iraq but it would have cost the US a great deal of grief. (See Georgia's Saakashvilli for lessons on how an ally should not act without first consulting the US.)

The Israelis counseled Pres. Bush.

Sharon warned Bush of Saddam threat
By HERB KEINON

Former prime minister Ariel Sharon told President George W. Bush ahead of the US-led invasion of Iraq of the dangers Saddam Hussein posed for the region, but also warned him that the Arab world would not be receptive to democracy, former ambassador to the US Danny Ayalon told The Jerusalem Post on Thursday.

Ayalon, who sat in on numerous Bush-Sharon meetings, said the US and Israel held close consultations during the run-up to the war, but that Sharon was very careful not to advocate any particular American action.

Ayalon said he served as "Sharon's watchdog," ensuring that when officials from the Defense or Foreign ministries came to Washington they would give US officials a "true analysis, but never cross the line of recommending policy."

Israel, Ayalon said, did not tell the Americans what they should do, since Sharon was "astute and careful enough" to realize that this could lead to future accusations that Israel led the US into Iraq. But, Ayalon said, Bush did receive Sharon's analysis of the situation.

According to Sharon, Saddam was an acute threat, and he supported his analysis by pointing to the Iraqi dictator's conduct during the Iran-Iraq War; his launching of 39 Scud missiles at Israel, and more than 40 at Saudi Arabia, Kuwait and Bahrain, during the first Gulf War; his material and logistical support for terrorists; and his track record of intimidating his neighbors.

In addition, Ayalon said the Saddam threat factor was driven home by the intelligence information that "we all shared" that Saddam had weapons of mass destruction, "especially in the chemical area."

Another element involved in these analyses was the fact that despite Israel's bombing of Iraq's Osirak nuclear plant in 1981, Iraq still had the blueprints and technological know-how to create nuclear weapons, "and it was just the matter of finding the right moment to put their program back on track in a fast manner."


http://www.jpost.com/servlet/Satellite?cid=1167467715523&pagename=JPost/JPArticle/Printer

More to come.
 
Last edited:
The lack of support from within our own nation and the reaction from our allies should have been a wake-up call for you warmongers but no. All of you were only bent on one thing...war.

Lack of support within the US? Data, please...

There was overwhelming support from both the public and Congress. That support waned because within four days Democrats and the media were pissing themselves and screaming "Quagmire" (which was probably a record given they waited 4 weeks to wail 'Quagmire' in Afghanistan).

Now we must set about the task of repairing our international reputation because of what Bush and your ilk have done through your warmongering desires of preemptively attacking a sovereign nation incapable of hurting us, supporting human rights violations and torture, isolationism and " bring it on" "you're either with us or against us" sabre rattling.

What repairs are necessary? We see pro-American leaders in Germany, France, and Italy. We see pro-American leaders in Eastern Europe.

I could care less if Russia, China, parts of Africa and Latin America think poorly of our reputation. And their perception of such certainly shouldn't impact how the US views its national interests or pursues policies to address those interests, short of precipitating open war.

Apples and Oranges.

Clown, it was bin Laden himself who cited Somalia when he declared the US a paper tiger...get your **** straight.

Your dehumanization of American deaths only proves your callousness and cowardly willingness to let others die for YOUR "safety".

Questioning your logic is to dehumanize American deaths (you probably meant soldiers) and displays a callousness about others fighting wars?

Get over yourself. Your opinion ain't that important and questioning your opinion doesn't reflect any regard for others.

Unfortunately we'll never know since Bush preemptively invaded a nation that was no imminent threat to us.

John Rockefeller and John Edwards believed Iraq was an immnent threat.

I believe we must take responsibility for our own actions. You're clearly incapable of doing that.

No, you're not accepting responsibility. In your eyes, the US is always at fault. Your "understanding" of others simply used to cast America in the worst light possible. Apparently, for you, American has no legitimate interests. But Iran does. :roll:
 
JMak, as you respond to my posts please remember that I love Bush and have been defending his administration and the war since before the 2004 election.

Irrelevant.

You are fairly new here and I am used to the denizens at DP being possessed of certain information. My bad.

Than why suggest I hit the history books? Why not simply say what you mean? It's not like you need to provide reams of links. Simply designate what it is you are referring to.

The onus was not on Israel to save US.

No argued so.

The Israelis COULD have launched a first strike on Iraq but it would have cost the US a great deal of grief. (See Georgia's Saakashvilli for lessons on how an ally should not act without first consulting the US.)

Huh? So, in 2002, when you say that this growing threat peaked compelling Israel to ask the US to remove Hussein, Israel could have struck first, but didn't because it might have given the US a headache, so it asked the US to directly intervene and thereby ensure such a headache? :roll:

The Israelis counseled Pres. Bush.

Counseled him how?

More to come.

Please don't bother.
 
Saddam threatens Israel, Briefings

Iraqi President Saddam Hussein has taken the opportunity of a television address on Iraq's national day to launch a call for an attack on Israel by the Arabs. Coming shortly before the 11th anniversary of Iraq's invasion of neighbouring Kuwait, there can be little doubt that Saddam's ambition to play a dominant role in regional politics is succeeding.

We have long warned that the threat posed by Saddam is mounting. He has repeatedly snubbed the United Nations over the issue of weapons inspections. He has scored a major victory - with the active assistance of Russia -with the failure of the Americans and the British proposals to amend the UN 'food-for-oil' sanctions regime. In fact, the existing sanctions regime has proved a failure and Iraq continues to export oil illicitly to Jordan and Turkey (see JID 13 July 2001).

http://www.janes.com/articles/Janes-Intelligence-Digest-2001/Saddam-threatens-Israel.html
 
Irrelevant.

Than why suggest I hit the history books? Why not simply say what you mean? It's not like you need to provide reams of links. Simply designate what it is you are referring to.

No argued so.

Huh? So, in 2002, when you say that this growing threat peaked compelling Israel to ask the US to remove Hussein, Israel could have struck first, but didn't because it might have given the US a headache, so it asked the US to directly intervene and thereby ensure such a headache? :roll:

Counseled him how?

Please don't bother.

I want you to know you are starting to try my patience. If you continue insulting me I will embarrass you and I am trying reeeal hard not to allow you to push my button that way.

If you want to gain knowledge I will oblige you. If you want to scrap let me know.

I am giving you the choice.

 
I want you to know you are starting to try my patience. If you continue insulting me I will embarrass you and I am trying reeeal hard not to allow you to push my button that way.

Asking you to establish your premises is angering you? Take it easy, pal.

You made a specific claim. I challenged the claim. You responded by not addressing my challenge but demanding that I read books and divine from them what you realyl meant. I called BS.

Don't blame me.

You say that there was no legit reason(s) for this war. I said there were and were clearly expressed by our government.

You say that because there was no legit reason for the war there must be some other explanation. Your explanation is that Israel asked the US to take down Hussein because Israel felt threatened. Your explanation also indicated that Israel had felt threatened for a decade prior to 2002.

I simply asked why Israel would ask the US to intervene in 2002. In other words, what chagned about the threat that motivated Israel believe that war was necessary when it hadn't felt that way the previous ten years?

I then cited Israel's action when it actually did feel threatened by Iraq and they did unilaterally attack Iraq to question why Israel would supposedly defer and seek the US's help in taking out Saddam.

You ducked.

You then argued that the reason Israel didn't act on its own was because doing so would have caused the US grief...so Israel asked the US to do the job herself and ensure she would experience the totality of grief. That doesn't make any sense.

It's not my problem that your argument is not coherent.

If you want to gain knowledge I will oblige you. If you want to scrap let me know.

I asked you several times to fill in the blanks.

You insist I go fishing in my history books and simply divine whatever it is you're really saying.

Get a grip.

I am giving you the choice.

How about presenting a coherent argument? Start with that and we'll go from there. Otherwise, grab a paper bag and take some deep breaths, tough guy.
 
Asking you to establish your premises is angering you? Take it easy, pal.

You made a specific claim. I challenged the claim. You responded by not addressing my challenge but demanding that I read books and divine from them what you realyl meant. I called BS.

Don't blame me.

You say that there was no legit reason(s) for this war. I said there were and were clearly expressed by our government.

You say that because there was no legit reason for the war there must be some other explanation. Your explanation is that Israel asked the US to take down Hussein because Israel felt threatened. Your explanation also indicated that Israel had felt threatened for a decade prior to 2002.

I simply asked why Israel would ask the US to intervene in 2002. In other words, what chagned about the threat that motivated Israel believe that war was necessary when it hadn't felt that way the previous ten years?

I then cited Israel's action when it actually did feel threatened by Iraq and they did unilaterally attack Iraq to question why Israel would supposedly defer and seek the US's help in taking out Saddam.

You ducked.

You then argued that the reason Israel didn't act on its own was because doing so would have caused the US grief...so Israel asked the US to do the job herself and ensure she would experience the totality of grief. That doesn't make any sense.

It's not my problem that your argument is not coherent.



I asked you several times to fill in the blanks.

You insist I go fishing in my history books and simply divine whatever it is you're really saying.

Get a grip.



How about presenting a coherent argument? Start with that and we'll go from there. Otherwise, grab a paper bag and take some deep breaths, tough guy.

Know what?

You win.

Good night and good luck.
 
There was overwhelming support from both the public and Congress. That support waned because within four days Democrats and the media were pissing themselves and screaming "Quagmire" (which was probably a record given they waited 4 weeks to wail 'Quagmire' in Afghanistan).

Both those in support of this debacle, public and congressional, were wrong from the beginning.

What repairs are necessary? We see pro-American leaders in Germany, France, and Italy. We see pro-American leaders in Eastern Europe.

I could care less if Russia, China, parts of Africa and Latin America think poorly of our reputation. And their perception of such certainly shouldn't impact how the US views its national interests or pursues policies to address those interests, short of precipitating open war.

Pursuing national, even international interests and policies to address these interests should not be at the expense of our reputation nor at the expense of discarding other national opinions that we don't like. Remember, more flies with honey then vinegar but then that doesn't matter to you right? Rattle that saber baby, rattle that saber. :roll:

Clown, it was bin Laden himself who cited Somalia when he declared the US a paper tiger...get your **** straight.

Insults get you no where.

Bin Laden later usurped Mog for his own propaganda machine. Yes later intel says he had advisers there but do you honestly believe Mog had earmarks of AQ influence?

Questioning your logic is to dehumanize American deaths (you probably meant soldiers) and displays a callousness about others fighting wars?

Get over yourself. Your opinion ain't that important and questioning your opinion doesn't reflect any regard for others.

Your words show a true callousness toward the real human cost of war and a morally bankrupt willingness to devalue any loss of American lives under a banner of the ends justify the means, or as Rice intoned "a strategic victory".

John Rockefeller and John Edwards believed Iraq was an imminent threat.

So?

No, you're not accepting responsibility. In your eyes, the US is always at fault. Your "understanding" of others simply used to cast America in the worst light possible. Apparently, for you, American has no legitimate interests. But Iran does. :roll:

America can stand up to the truth about ourself as we have in the past and we will today and in the future. There is no dishonor in that.

We fail as a nation when we hide from our mistakes and try to bury them behind fabricated justifications, lies and terms meant to instill false patriotism like "legitimate interests" and those who differ with you, like me, would comfort the enemy. I pity you.
 
I'll make a deal with you...let's don't but say we did.

;)

I already did. Only because it was so reminiscent of when SNL was actually funny. Oh Eddie Murphy? Can anybody else make Mr. Rogers as funny as you? No Nigga. Nobody can.
 
What I find interesting is that often Republicans in favor of removing Saddam and are against Tyrants still love Reagan, who's adminstration saw numerous overthrows of legitimate democracies and the installation of fascist dictators. Doesn't seem to make much sense.

Cartoonish leftwing pseudo-history for the consumption of the lowest grade obamabot dupe. :mrgreen:
 
Both those in support of this debacle, public and congressional, were wrong from the beginning.

Wrong is a judgment. That's a really nice opinion that you have. But wholly irrelevant to the point I was addressing with the comment you quoted.

Pursuing national, even international interests and policies to address these interests should not be at the expense of our reputation nor at the expense of discarding other national opinions that we don't like.

Wow? The US should avoid protecting her interests so that we don't offend the likes of Kim Il, Ahmadijenad, Medvedev, Mguabe, et al? I mean, I might consider Russia's feeling if I were to be putting subs in the Black Sea and putting intermediate nukes in Poland, but short of something like that...offending their sensibilities is about the last thing we should be concerned about.

Your logic has subjugating our national security to a popularity contest.

Your words show a true callousness toward the real human cost of war and a morally bankrupt willingness to devalue any loss of American lives under a banner of the ends justify the means, or as Rice intoned "a strategic victory".

Oh, please, drama queen. I have displayed no such thing.

However, that you posted such a sentiment truly does reveal your cynical attitude towards war...a punchline for weak political conspiracy arguments.

America can stand up to the truth about ourself as we have in the past and we will today and in the future. There is no dishonor in that.

Funny how the truth for you always involves the US being the bad actor.

We fail as a nation when we hide from our mistakes and try to bury them behind fabricated justifications, lies and terms meant to instill false patriotism like "legitimate interests" and those who differ with you, like me, would comfort the enemy. I pity you.

Your pity party is pathetic.

You citing our nation's failings...a joke.
 
Back
Top Bottom