Do you really see no difference between the Civil War and the Iraq war? If not, there's no hope because you are hopelessly partisan and won't see the forest for the trees.
No relevant difference, no. And the fact that you still offer no examples and resort only to ad hominems further confirms my position.
There was no connection between why we went into Afghanistan in retaliation for 9/11 and why we went into Iraq. Iraq had nothing to do with the war on terror. He wasn't connected, he wasn't hiding terrorists, he wasn't doing anything but running his mouth about crap. He didn't have WMD's, he didn't pose a threat to the US, there was no reason to go.
Repeating lies doesn't make them true. Saddam had nothing to do with 9/11, but that is the only true part of anything you have said. Saddam's terror-sponsoring regime (which
DID have WMD, and
WAS hiding terrorists, and
HAD tried to assassinate one of our presidents) was the central battlefield in the War on Terror.
Because, unlike liberals, who only
claim to stand for diplomacy-first, as long as it can be used to oppose national defense, Republicans
ACTUALLY believe in diplomacy-first, which had been tried for 15 years on Saddam and not long at all with the regimes Democrats were demanding we target. 9/11 made terror-sponsors like Saddam intolerable. He didn't
have to be involved in 9/11.
There were no terrorist camps there before we went it. There was no major terrorist activity or presence before we went there. The only thing you have to link to terrorism at all was that he offered money to the families of suicide bombers, but there was no training camps or other activity of the sort there before we went in. And the only reason he offered money was because he was a dick.
Even the 9/11 Commission Report, which was very slanted in favor of liberals, disagrees with you. Again, repeating this lie won't make it true. :shrug:
Too bad he didn't have any.
Again, repeating this lie won't make it true.
Propaganda and misdirect. Are we still liberators or occupiers? And the UN holds no sovereignty. Funny how people will use it in one instance and rally against it in another. Hypocrisy is all it is, blind partisan hypocrisy.
False labeling and
actual misdirect.
Liberals treat the UN as the final word on all things. What better to debunk bogus liberal hysteria about the legality of the war than to point out that the UN authorized it? That's not hypocrisy, that's using the only moral and legal authority liberals will always recognize to validate what they refuse to acknowledge was perfectly legal.
If FDR had gone into Germany without declaring war, would it still have been something to characterize as going "in against a sovereign nation and remov[ing] their leader, destroy[ing] their government, set[ting] up an occupying police force, etc?"
Of course not. Have some intellectual honesty. :roll:
The reality is, we liberated a country in which virtually everyone but Saddam's regime desperately wanted Saddam's regime gone. We were and still are
liberators there to fight
terrorists.
Um, sure, if by misinformation, you mean citing a provable fact. The news media delivered nearly 100% of the news on Iraq, a country the size of California, from one tiny little triangle of the country with all the problems. It would be like reporting on California only from the ghettos of LA, and only on cop-killings and gang violence. That's the kind of coverage you're accusing me of peddling misinformation for saying is imbalanced.
This would be the same news media that buried the fact that we found WMD in Iraq, lied about Saddam's connections to terrorists, and even to al Qaida, deliberately misrepresented the Iranian terrorism campaign inside Iraq as a "hopeless civil war," was repeatedly caught peddling Soros-funded propaganda.
Like I said, you're so brainwashed that balance looks like imbalance.
Wait...your defense is that we lost fewer troops in 4 years under Clinton than we did in 5 years in Iraq? Who says I condone what Clinton did? He misused the military almost as grievously.
No, my defense is that this war that the news media, as well as
elected Democrats, kept telling us was such a disaster, actually had fewer casualties in 5 years of heavy fighting than we had in 4 years of "peace" under Clinton.
Though there are those like you whom are unwilling to accept responsibility for actions. We've been screwing around in an area for decades, you think it's ok and that negative feelings towards Americans is uncalled for.
Yes, we Republicans refuse to "take responsibility" for defending our allies in Kuwait and Saudi Arabia from an unprovoked invasion. We refuse to "take responsibility" for defending our allies in Israel from non-stop, unprovoked missile attacks and suicide bombers. We refuse to "take responsibility" for siding with Saddam against the far greater evil in Iran (i.e., shifting alliances along with our national interests like every other country on the planet).
The things we've done in the Middle East are nothing to be ashamed of and in no way legitimize the actions of those trying feverishly to mass murder our civilians. 9/11 happened
before Iraq, not after, as did decades of other unprovoked terrorist attacks against us.
And WTF did Hitler have anything to do with this. That's just appeal to emotion.
Um...he was another genocidal war-monger like Saddam who we would've been entirely justified in taking out, even without this petty technicality you dishonestly cling to about officially declaring war.
Not rocket science.
And nothing more than partisan hackery and drivel. Good job showing a complete lack of objectivity and rational response.
FACT: Democrats have undermined and lied about the war in Iraq at every turn.
FACT: Democrats have tried to force surrender and defeat at every turn, even as we started to win.
Not partisan hackery,
facts, as inconvenient as they might be to
actual partisan hacks.