• 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!

For Veterans and Military personnel only.[W:651]

For Veterans and Military personnel only.

  • Total voters
    51
Re: For Veterans and Military personnel only.

ReverendHellh0und said:
So you think we should have attacked saudi arabia?
Click to expand...

No, but it would have made more sense than attacking Iraq. That was the point.
 
Catawba said:
No, but it would have made more sense than attacking Iraq. That was the point.
Click to expand...



So you can show that the saudi government sponsored this?

Or do you support attacking countries because of things some of thier xpatriots do?

I gues you think we should bomb the ahot out of iran then.

My god man do you think things through? :lamo
 
Re: For Veterans and Military personnel only.

There is as much linking to the Saudi government than there is to Iraq. And much more linking to Pakistan. Iraq was just mindless.
 
Re: For Veterans and Military personnel only.

ReverendHellh0und said:
So you think we should have attacked saudi arabia?
Click to expand...


That's not what I said.

Look if you are a supporter of the war on the Iraqis and others like it, vote for the GOP, whom all but 7 voted for AOF in Iraq.

For myself, since I thought it was an idiotic war that wasted far too many lives, and created far too much national debt, all unnecessarily, I will vote for the party of which a majority voted against AOF in Iraq.
 
Re: For Veterans and Military personnel only.

Catawba said:
That's not what I said.

Look if you are a supporter of the war on the Iraqis and others like it, vote for the GOP, whom all but 7 voted for AOF in Iraq.

For myself, since I thought it was an idiotic war that wasted far too many lives, and created far too much national debt, all unnecessarily, I will vote for the party of which a majority voted against AOF in Iraq.
Click to expand...

So, you're voting for the Green party candidate?
 
Re: For Veterans and Military personnel only.

mac said:
So, you're voting for the Green party candidate?
Click to expand...

There was no green party majority vote in Congress against AOF in Iraq. The majority of Democrats in Congress voted against it, vs all but 7 of the Republicans that voted for it.
 
Re: For Veterans and Military personnel only.

Catawba said:
There was no green party majority vote in Congress against AOF in Iraq.
Click to expand...

Exactly.

The majority of Democrats in Congress voted against it, vs all but 7 of the Republicans that voted for it.
Click to expand...

Lol barely. Just under half of them voted for it.
 
Re: For Veterans and Military personnel only.

mac said:
Lol barely. Just under half of them voted for it.
Click to expand...

A majority of Democrats against it vs almost every Republican for it. Easy choice for me.
 
Re: For Veterans and Military personnel only.

Catawba said:
A majority of Democrats against it vs almost every Republican for it. Easy choice for me.
Click to expand...

Ok, Cat, whatever. Grab the straw..
 
Re: For Veterans and Military personnel only.

Catawba said:
As supported by rich Saudi donors. Most of the suicide bombers in Iraq were also Saudi.
Click to expand...

Most of the IRA was supported by rich US donors. You seem to have a hard time separating countries from individuals. At least when it suits your argument.
 
Re: For Veterans and Military personnel only.

mac said:
Ok, Cat, whatever. Grab the straw..
Click to expand...

Grab the straw? What does that have to do with me choosing the party of which a majority of which represent my views, rather that the party that almost every single one of them doesn't?
 
Re: For Veterans and Military personnel only.

ReverendHellh0und said:
I fail to see your relevance to the current discussion here. :shrug:
Click to expand...

The current discussion is about us going into Iraq when none of the 9/11 attackers were from Iraq. It was pointed out most were from SA. You said you can't link it to the Saudi government. Nor can you link it to the Iraqi government. There is a stronger link to some in the government of Pakistan. I think it's pretty clear how the comment relates.
 
Re: For Veterans and Military personnel only.

Boo Radley said:
yes, they have allowed themselves to be neutered, democrat and republican alike. And contempt for this is proper. But the decision to go to war was Bush's and Bush's alone. I've fine with shame on all of them, but I think we need to be clear on what they have to be ashamed of.
Click to expand...

Does funding it not endorse it? I agree with you that it was Bush's decision to send them. He has that authority (which is bullcrap btw). But funding it enables it. Simple as that.
 
Re: For Veterans and Military personnel only.

Catawba said:
That's not what I said.

Look if you are a supporter of the war on the Iraqis and others like it, vote for the GOP, whom all but 7 voted for AOF in Iraq.

For myself, since I thought it was an idiotic war that wasted far too many lives, and created far too much national debt, all unnecessarily, I will vote for the party of which a majority voted against AOF in Iraq.
Click to expand...

But for Afghanistan.........the hypocrisy rears its ugly head again. Your "side" voted to fund the Iraq war over and over again. No money=no war. They are enablers no matter what you say.
 
Re: For Veterans and Military personnel only.

MarineTpartier said:
Does funding it not endorse it? I agree with you that it was Bush's decision to send them. He has that authority (which is bullcrap btw). But funding it enables it. Simple as that.
Click to expand...

Actually, no. Many funded while fighting aganist it. Again, right or wrong (and I say wrong) the climate was not such that defunding was reasonable to expect.
 
Re: For Veterans and Military personnel only.

Boo Radley said:
Actually, no. Many funded while fighting aganist it. Again, right or wrong (and I say wrong) the climate was not such that defunding was reasonable to expect.
Click to expand...

See my previous post for what I think of the "climate".
 
Re: For Veterans and Military personnel only.

MarineTpartier said:
But for Afghanistan.........the hypocrisy rears its ugly head again. Your "side" voted to fund the Iraq war over and over again. No money=no war. They are enablers no matter what you say.
Click to expand...
ye, the vast majority of Democrats voted, repeatedly, to keep funding the war in Iraq.... folks simply cannot get around that simple fact.
 
Re: For Veterans and Military personnel only.

MarineTpartier said:
See my previous post for what I think of the "climate".
Click to expand...

I saw, but honesty matters. No matter where anyone stood, defunding was not going to happen. Not after VN.
 
Re: For Veterans and Military personnel only.

MarineTpartier said:
But for Afghanistan.........the hypocrisy rears its ugly head again. Your "side" voted to fund the Iraq war over and over again. No money=no war. They are enablers no matter what you say.
Click to expand...

Again, you ignore the viable choices. But do continue on with your cry that all who do not choose fairybook heros are hypocrites if it makes you feel better about your pick, Ron Paul.
 
Boo Radley said:
The current discussion is about us going into Iraq when none of the 9/11 attackers were from Iraq. It was pointed out most were from SA. You said you can't link it to the Saudi government. Nor can you link it to the Iraqi government. There is a stronger link to some in the government of Pakistan. I think it's pretty clear how the comment relates.
Click to expand...




Not sure about your jibber jabber here. Again, catawba wants to absolve everyone but americans but thats nothing new. He brought up an irrellevant point and you got confused as to that being the discussion.

Ideologues like you and catwabe tend to have that issue. :shrug:
 
Re: For Veterans and Military personnel only.

Catawba said:
Again, you ignore the viable choices. But do continue on with your cry that all who do not choose fairybook heros are hypocrites if it makes you feel better about your pick, Ron Paul.
Click to expand...

I will. And please DON'T continue with your cry that you are anti-war if you plan to vote for King Drone. There is a similarity to VN here btw. Lyndon Johnson liked to approve his bombing targets too. We saw how that worked out.
That President Obama and Romney are viable choices to you gives me another reason not to vote for them.
 
Re: For Veterans and Military personnel only.

ReverendHellh0und said:
Not sure about your jibber jabber here. Again, catawba wants to absolve everyone but americans but thats nothing new. He brought up an irrellevant point and you got confused as to that being the discussion.

Ideologues like you and catwabe tend to have that issue. :shrug:
Click to expand...

What were the Iraqis connection to 9/11 you've found that everyone else missed?
 
Re: For Veterans and Military personnel only.

MarineTpartier said:
I will. And please DON'T continue with your cry that you are anti-war if you plan to vote for King Drone. There is a similarity to VN here btw. Lyndon Johnson liked to approve his bombing targets too. We saw how that worked out.
That President Obama and Romney are viable choices to you gives me another reason not to vote for them.
Click to expand...

I have never said I am anti-war. I am anti-optional wars for US hegemony. Like the libertarians, I support military action to defend against an attack. However, I am also a pragmatist that believes in the least harm of the choices given. Of what value is there to vote for Paul, when so doing only gives more votes to the choice that has pledged to do the most harm?
 
Re: For Veterans and Military personnel only.

Catawba said:
I have never said I am anti-war. I am anti-optional wars for US hegemony. Like the libertarians, I support military action to defend against an attack. However, I am also a pragmatist that believes in the least harm of the choices given. Of what value is there to vote for Paul, when so doing only gives more votes to the choice that has pledged to do the most harm?
Click to expand...
Of what value is there to vote for President Obama again? I vote for my personal convictions. Plain as that. I don't settle.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top Bottom