100 Billion dollars we don't have

SO you are prepared to bail out on your country? Do you need any assistance packing? We don't need fair weather Americans. We need real Americans, you and those like you are free to leave whenever you are ready, just remember to purchase a one way ticket.

I am a real American. Simply because I don't dig out my dress blues and post that as my picture proves nothing (And if I did I wouldn't look like Opie from Mayberry, rfd).

I have never posted any picture in dress blues. I did have an old picture in Dress Greens up, but have since changed it to one where I was marching with the firing squad of the American Legion to do a 21 gun salute on Memorial day. Which doesn't prove I am a real American. What proves you are not is that you have plans to bail out. Unless of course you were lying, which just makes you a liar. Either way you really aren't worth much as far as I'm concerned.

Never been compared to Opie before, Unless the troops really kept it quiet. But regardless, nice try at changing the subject. Still, need any help packing?

I think Opie left the show long before it became RFD.
 
Some people still insist that we be reactive instead of proactive against terrorism. It just doesn't work. It didn't work in the 70's against Baader-Meinhoff, and being reactive will not work against Al Quaeda. Terrorism isn't a crime it's a war.

"Some people" - you sound much like a fox newscaster. I didn't suggest being reactive, Bush reacted by invading Iraq, a soverign nation which had nothing to do with 9/11.
What Bush should have done was to make OBL out to be the villian he is, and to reach out to Islam and the entire ME seeking to bring OBL and his core managers to justice. That is proactive. Instead, "Crusade" was the first word out of his mouth and his "Crusade" has cost us almost 5,000 American lives, and more than three times that in serious injury and a $ trillion (?) or more in treasure. The entire cost of the Iraq fiasco will not be known for at least a generation.


Why must we constantly reteach people about Iraq? We are not even talking about Iraq but about Terrorism. The Attack on the Saddam Regime had nothing to do with it. If Bush is remembered for anything it will be for taking Terrorism reaction away from the police (FBI< CIA< etc...) and giving it to the military for action. The attack on Iraq was even the right thing, it was mishandled after the Iraqi Military was defeated. Apparently, you have much to learn.
BTW reaching out to Islam doesn't work. Have you heard one Islamic group condemn the attacks of 9-11-01? I haven't.
 
Luck likely had little to do with it, you planned and worked to get what you have. Me, I had luck along with planning. My wife made it clear it was stupid to carry debt. My fiscal responsibility - before marriage - went so far as to record checks for over the amount (say I bought a pizza for $17.22, I wrote in the register $18). I never bounced a check, but I never reconciled the account either. After we wed, my new wife took the checkbook, found I had over $300 in the account I was unaware of, and never allowed me to have the check book again.
We too have at least a one year emergency fund, and during the Bush years had our passports and enough euros to get established if we felt our country ventured too far to the right. Listening to Sarah Palin and some on this message board, I'm glad we kept the euros for two reasons (1 to 1.65 for a while this year).

SO you are prepared to bail out on your country? Do you need any assistance packing? We don't need fair weather Americans. We need real Americans, you and those like you are free to leave whenever you are ready, just remember to purchase a one way ticket.

I am a real American. Simply because I don't dig out my dress blues and post that as my picture proves nothing (And if I did I wouldn't look like Opie from Mayberry, rfd).

You're a real American?????

Then you must be one of these guys.

T-HomelandSecurity-Detail.jpg
 
So now you want to redefine what Offensive Action means. You redefined what a Patriot was so I guess you won't stop there.

Bush got tired of us being a target. Of reacting.

He decided to go on offense.

Before Iraq I was in the military and saw Muslims taking flights...turning around and flying immediately back...intelligence gathering. Once Iraq started their funds dried up so they couldn't plan attacks like before. All of their resources were being used in the insurgency.

The costs......all of that up-armoring for Hummers. armor, new weapons and training. We've got the best equipped army in the world now. That must really suck to you.

Well there's "offensive" action, meaning to strike your opponent first...

and then there's "offensive" action, meaning to do something that offends everyone.

I guess Bush did offend a whole lot of people.

LOL.
 
Why must we constantly reteach people about Iraq? We are not even talking about Iraq but about Terrorism. The Attack on the Saddam Regime had nothing to do with it. If Bush is remembered for anything it will be for taking Terrorism reaction away from the police (FBI< CIA< etc...) and giving it to the military for action. The attack on Iraq was even the right thing, it was mishandled after the Iraqi Military was defeated. Apparently, you have much to learn.
BTW reaching out to Islam doesn't work. Have you heard one Islamic group condemn the attacks of 9-11-01? I haven't.

Hmmm, why would anyone include Iraq in a conversation about Bush's terrorism policy?

Oh, I don't know, perhaps because the Bush administration told the American people that they were invading Iraq because they 1) trained terrorists, 2) Had WMD's that they were going to give to terrorists, and 3) that they were harboring terrorists.

The attack on Iraq was in no way the right thing, it was a massive waste ot time, lives and money. It was an assinine decision, and it most probably stopped us from catching Osama Bin Laden and destroying Al Qaeda. It also ruined our international reputation and credibility.

Apparently you sir "have much to learn".

And there have been many, many Islamic groups that condemned the 9-11 attacks, you just never heard about it because it didn't fit in with FoxNews' and Rush Limbaugh's narrative.
 
So now you want to redefine what Offensive Action means. You redefined what a Patriot was so I guess you won't stop there.

Bush got tired of us being a target. Of reacting.

He decided to go on offense.

Before Iraq I was in the military and saw Muslims taking flights...turning around and flying immediately back...intelligence gathering. Once Iraq started their funds dried up so they couldn't plan attacks like before. All of their resources were being used in the insurgency.

The costs......all of that up-armoring for Hummers. armor, new weapons and training. We've got the best equipped army in the world now. That must really suck to you.

Well there's "offensive" action, meaning to strike your opponent first...

and then there's "offensive" action, meaning to do something that offends everyone.

I guess Bush did offend a whole lot of people.

LOL.

Yes.....he offended alot of Al Qaeda, Talliban fighters, and folks that think we should be nice to them.
 
Why must we constantly reteach people about Iraq? We are not even talking about Iraq but about Terrorism. The Attack on the Saddam Regime had nothing to do with it. If Bush is remembered for anything it will be for taking Terrorism reaction away from the police (FBI< CIA< etc...) and giving it to the military for action. The attack on Iraq was even the right thing, it was mishandled after the Iraqi Military was defeated. Apparently, you have much to learn.
BTW reaching out to Islam doesn't work. Have you heard one Islamic group condemn the attacks of 9-11-01? I haven't.

Hmmm, why would anyone include Iraq in a conversation about Bush's terrorism policy?

Oh, I don't know, perhaps because the Bush administration told the American people that they were invading Iraq because they 1) trained terrorists, 2) Had WMD's that they were going to give to terrorists, and 3) that they were harboring terrorists.

The attack on Iraq was in no way the right thing, it was a massive waste ot time, lives and money. It was an assinine decision, and it most probably stopped us from catching Osama Bin Laden and destroying Al Qaeda. It also ruined our international reputation and credibility.

Apparently you sir "have much to learn".

And there have been many, many Islamic groups that condemned the 9-11 attacks, you just never heard about it because it didn't fit in with FoxNews' and Rush Limbaugh's narrative.

At least that is what Obama's State-run media tells us.

The official record shows that to be a fallacy.

What was the phrase the inspectors used?

"Iraq was a much more dangerous place then we thought!!!"
 
Last edited:
Hey Obama, how about forking over the Nobel Prize million? Lead by example.

P.S. You know Congress has to agree with you Mr. President?

Do you doubt that Congress will give him what he wants? Congress doesn't care. It is not their money they are spending.

Immie
 
Why must we constantly reteach people about Iraq? We are not even talking about Iraq but about Terrorism. The Attack on the Saddam Regime had nothing to do with it. If Bush is remembered for anything it will be for taking Terrorism reaction away from the police (FBI< CIA< etc...) and giving it to the military for action. The attack on Iraq was even the right thing, it was mishandled after the Iraqi Military was defeated. Apparently, you have much to learn.
BTW reaching out to Islam doesn't work. Have you heard one Islamic group condemn the attacks of 9-11-01? I haven't.

Hmmm, why would anyone include Iraq in a conversation about Bush's terrorism policy?

Oh, I don't know, perhaps because the Bush administration told the American people that they were invading Iraq because they 1) trained terrorists, 2) Had WMD's that they were going to give to terrorists, and 3) that they were harboring terrorists.

The attack on Iraq was in no way the right thing, it was a massive waste ot time, lives and money. It was an assinine decision, and it most probably stopped us from catching Osama Bin Laden and destroying Al Qaeda. It also ruined our international reputation and credibility.

Apparently you sir "have much to learn".

And there have been many, many Islamic groups that condemned the 9-11 attacks, you just never heard about it because it didn't fit in with FoxNews' and Rush Limbaugh's narrative.

Vast, the reason we went into Iraq was because of the violation of Resolution 1441. Saddam was playing a "cat and mouse" game with the inspectors for months. Fact is a lot of people think that during this particuliar time he shipped out the bio weapons to Syria. Yes, France, Germany, and Russia wanted more time....but there was a reason for that, and it wasn't discovered until after the takeover.
Might want to do a little less projecting and a little more research.
 
Why must we constantly reteach people about Iraq? We are not even talking about Iraq but about Terrorism. The Attack on the Saddam Regime had nothing to do with it. If Bush is remembered for anything it will be for taking Terrorism reaction away from the police (FBI< CIA< etc...) and giving it to the military for action. The attack on Iraq was even the right thing, it was mishandled after the Iraqi Military was defeated. Apparently, you have much to learn.
BTW reaching out to Islam doesn't work. Have you heard one Islamic group condemn the attacks of 9-11-01? I haven't.

Hmmm, why would anyone include Iraq in a conversation about Bush's terrorism policy?

Oh, I don't know, perhaps because the Bush administration told the American people that they were invading Iraq because they 1) trained terrorists, 2) Had WMD's that they were going to give to terrorists, and 3) that they were harboring terrorists.

The attack on Iraq was in no way the right thing, it was a massive waste ot time, lives and money. It was an assinine decision, and it most probably stopped us from catching Osama Bin Laden and destroying Al Qaeda. It also ruined our international reputation and credibility.

Apparently you sir "have much to learn".

And there have been many, many Islamic groups that condemned the 9-11 attacks, you just never heard about it because it didn't fit in with FoxNews' and Rush Limbaugh's narrative.

There we go again, because you are not a Bush hater you must listen to Rush. I do not and have never been a fan of any; that is A N Y; of the talking heads. On radio or TV. I am intelligent enough to think for myself. If you lined up a dozen of the top talking heads I probably couldn't name 3 of them.

Now, Iraq......Attacked their little neighbor Kuwait and threatened Saudi Arabia. The two countries asked for our assistance. (Military assistance). We answered the call and freed Kuwait. for the next 12 years Saddam played games with us and the UN. President Clinton spanked him with missiles several times, before he finally signed the Iraqi freedom act of 1998. Which called for a regime change in Iraq. Bush got tired of his shit rather quickly once he took over and acted on it. It is a shame he listened to Rumsfeld and screwed it up But it was still the right thing to do.
 
Some people still insist that we be reactive instead of proactive against terrorism. It just doesn't work. It didn't work in the 70's against Baader-Meinhoff, and being reactive will not work against Al Quaeda. Terrorism isn't a crime it's a war.

"Some people" - you sound much like a fox newscaster. I didn't suggest being reactive, Bush reacted by invading Iraq, a soverign nation which had nothing to do with 9/11.
What Bush should have done was to make OBL out to be the villian he is, and to reach out to Islam and the entire ME seeking to bring OBL and his core managers to justice. That is proactive. Instead, "Crusade" was the first word out of his mouth and his "Crusade" has cost us almost 5,000 American lives, and more than three times that in serious injury and a $ trillion (?) or more in treasure. The entire cost of the Iraq fiasco will not be known for at least a generation.

So now you want to redefine what Offensive Action means. You redefined what a Patriot was so I guess you won't stop there.

Bush got tired of us being a target. Of reacting.

He decided to go on offense.

Before Iraq I was in the military and saw Muslims taking flights...turning around and flying immediately back...intelligence gathering. Once Iraq started their funds dried up so they couldn't plan attacks like before. All of their resources were being used in the insurgency.

The costs......all of that up-armoring for Hummers. armor, new weapons and training. We've got the best equipped army in the world now. That must really suck to you.

I enlisted in the Navy in 1967. In which branch and in what year did you enlist? I suspect you're a chicken hawk, most who think war is the answer are, and that includes GWB and Cheney, Libby and Wolfowitz, Lil' William Kristol and the rest of the neoconservatives.
 
Yes.....he offended alot of Al Qaeda, Talliban fighters, and folks that think we should be nice to them.

He "offended" the entire rest of the world.

Al Qaeda, on the other hand, became more powerful thanks to Bush's efforts.

They now have more of a reputation, more members, and a larger world-wide operation than they did before 9/11.
 
At least that is what Obama's State-run media tells us.

The official record shows that to be a fallacy.

What was the phrase the inspectors used?

"Iraq was a much more dangerous place then we thought!!!"

Ahh, by the use of the talking point "Obama's State Run Media", I see you are a Rush Limbaugh ditto-head.

No wonder you're so mis-informed.

Tell me ditto-head, where are the WMD's? Where are the "terrorist training camps" that existed in Iraq before the war began? Where are the terrorists that Saddam Hussein was "harboring".

You have to love Rush Limbaugh, because he claims all of his "predictions" always come true.

Why do they come true? Because he's a revisionist historian who preaches to a bunch of brainwashed retarded folks. And he re-writes history to fit what his predictions were, after the fact.

:lol::lol::lol::lol::lol:
 
"Some people" - you sound much like a fox newscaster. I didn't suggest being reactive, Bush reacted by invading Iraq, a soverign nation which had nothing to do with 9/11.
What Bush should have done was to make OBL out to be the villian he is, and to reach out to Islam and the entire ME seeking to bring OBL and his core managers to justice. That is proactive. Instead, "Crusade" was the first word out of his mouth and his "Crusade" has cost us almost 5,000 American lives, and more than three times that in serious injury and a $ trillion (?) or more in treasure. The entire cost of the Iraq fiasco will not be known for at least a generation.

So now you want to redefine what Offensive Action means. You redefined what a Patriot was so I guess you won't stop there.

Bush got tired of us being a target. Of reacting.

He decided to go on offense.

Before Iraq I was in the military and saw Muslims taking flights...turning around and flying immediately back...intelligence gathering. Once Iraq started their funds dried up so they couldn't plan attacks like before. All of their resources were being used in the insurgency.

The costs......all of that up-armoring for Hummers. armor, new weapons and training. We've got the best equipped army in the world now. That must really suck to you.

I enlisted in the Navy in 1967. In which branch and in what year did you enlist? I suspect you're a chicken hawk, most who think war is the answer are, and that includes GWB and Cheney, Libby and Wolfowitz, Lil' William Kristol and the rest of the neoconservatives.

I served in the Navy for one tour..ETSed and joined again in the Army...eventually serving at 5th Special Forces Group in Ft. Campbell KY.....you know. The Green Berets.

Served a few years on a couple of Special Forces "A" Teams.

Spent time in Mogadishu Somalia, Kuwait, amongst other places.

A fucken squid like you could be accused of being a Chicken Hawk I'm sure. Do you even know which end the bullet comes out of on an M14 swab?
 
Vast, the reason we went into Iraq was because of the violation of Resolution 1441. Saddam was playing a "cat and mouse" game with the inspectors for months. Fact is a lot of people think that during this particuliar time he shipped out the bio weapons to Syria. Yes, France, Germany, and Russia wanted more time....but there was a reason for that, and it wasn't discovered until after the takeover.
Might want to do a little less projecting and a little more research.

The rationalization Bush used to actually start the war was in fact similar to what you stated.

However, the REASON Bush and company gave the American people for going to war were:

1. Production of WMD, and dissemination of said WMD to Terrorists

2. Terrorist training camps in existence throughout Iraq

and

3. Terrorists being harbored by the Hussein government.

If you want proof of this, there are literally hundreds of hours of video that I could link here with Bush administration officials trying to sell these 3 points, not the least of which is Colin Powell on the floor of the UN.

France, Germany and Russia did not want the war to happen because they did not believe the danger presented by Iraq was worth the cost of invasion, and they were absolutely correct on that point. And right-wingers disparaged the French for years because they made the correct judgement.
 
Yes.....he offended alot of Al Qaeda, Talliban fighters, and folks that think we should be nice to them.

He "offended" the entire rest of the world.

Al Qaeda, on the other hand, became more powerful thanks to Bush's efforts.

They now have more of a reputation, more members, and a larger world-wide operation than they did before 9/11.

Says you. Al Qaeda lost alot of respect around the world for all of the trouble they caused.

Now they're outcasts in Iraq and quickly losing support all over the place.

The problem with the rest of the world is most of the rest of the world is too spineless to take on the challenge of putting all of those rat-bastard insurgents into an early grave.
 
Vast, the reason we went into Iraq was because of the violation of Resolution 1441. Saddam was playing a "cat and mouse" game with the inspectors for months. Fact is a lot of people think that during this particuliar time he shipped out the bio weapons to Syria. Yes, France, Germany, and Russia wanted more time....but there was a reason for that, and it wasn't discovered until after the takeover.
Might want to do a little less projecting and a little more research.

The rationalization Bush used to actually start the war was in fact similar to what you stated.

However, the REASON Bush and company gave the American people for going to war were:

1. Production of WMD, and dissemination of said WMD to Terrorists

2. Terrorist training camps in existence throughout Iraq

and

3. Terrorists being harbored by the Hussein government.

If you want proof of this, there are literally hundreds of hours of video that I could link here with Bush administration officials trying to sell these 3 points, not the least of which is Colin Powell on the floor of the UN.

France, Germany and Russia did not want the war to happen because they did not believe the danger presented by Iraq was worth the cost of invasion, and they were absolutely correct on that point. And right-wingers disparaged the French for years because they made the correct judgement.

Your missing the point on why Bush pulled the trigger, with the games being played, it forced Bush's hand in the matter. I am in agreement with you, though...there was bigger fish to fry. But France, Germany, and Russia were cauight with their pants down when troops discovered contraband from those 3 countries.
 
There we go again, because you are not a Bush hater you must listen to Rush. I do not and have never been a fan of any; that is A N Y; of the talking heads. On radio or TV. I am intelligent enough to think for myself. If you lined up a dozen of the top talking heads I probably couldn't name 3 of them.

Now, Iraq......Attacked their little neighbor Kuwait and threatened Saudi Arabia. The two countries asked for our assistance. (Military assistance). We answered the call and freed Kuwait. for the next 12 years Saddam played games with us and the UN. President Clinton spanked him with missiles several times, before he finally signed the Iraqi freedom act of 1998. Which called for a regime change in Iraq. Bush got tired of his shit rather quickly once he took over and acted on it. It is a shame he listened to Rumsfeld and screwed it up But it was still the right thing to do.

It's not because you're not a "Bush Hater". It's because you're making excuses for Bush, and still claiming Iraq was the "right decision".

Iraq was a horrible decision strategically, tactically, financially, and politically.

Pretty much the only people who think that Iraq was in fact a "Good Decision" are avid fans of right-wing talking heads. That's because right-wing talking heads continuously say that Iraq was "the right decision". And repetition seems to make it believable to some people.

If you are some sort of odd, extremely rare exception, you will have to forgive my strong suspicion that you do in fact listen to some talking head or other on a regular basis. I tend to base my personal judgements on the odds in cases like this.
 
Your missing the point on why Bush pulled the trigger, with the games being played, it forced Bush's hand in the matter. I am in agreement with you, though...there was bigger fish to fry. But France, Germany, and Russia were cauight with their pants down when troops discovered contraband from those 3 countries.

True, I would agree with the contraband point. But hey, they found stuff from American corporations too.

None of the contraband, however, had anything to do with the reasons for war.

Now, don't get me wrong, I was all for war with Iraq in Desert Storm. I was in the Army at the time, but that's not why I thought the war was justified.

I support that decision, because Bush I told us why we were going in, told the TRUTH, and let us base a decision on that truth.

We deemed, as a country that the invasion of one of our allies was a good reason for war.

If Bush had said that Iraq's defiance of the UN resolution was the only reason we should invade, and the country, congress, and UN had backed it instead of continuing to pursue the War on Terror wholeheartedly, well, I wouldn't have had any complaint really (except the poor handling of the situation).

But as it was, we were all lied to, our nation lost a large amount of credibility because of it, and Al Qaeda was allowed to escape and rebuild.
 
There we go again, because you are not a Bush hater you must listen to Rush. I do not and have never been a fan of any; that is A N Y; of the talking heads. On radio or TV. I am intelligent enough to think for myself. If you lined up a dozen of the top talking heads I probably couldn't name 3 of them.

Now, Iraq......Attacked their little neighbor Kuwait and threatened Saudi Arabia. The two countries asked for our assistance. (Military assistance). We answered the call and freed Kuwait. for the next 12 years Saddam played games with us and the UN. President Clinton spanked him with missiles several times, before he finally signed the Iraqi freedom act of 1998. Which called for a regime change in Iraq. Bush got tired of his shit rather quickly once he took over and acted on it. It is a shame he listened to Rumsfeld and screwed it up But it was still the right thing to do.

It's not because you're not a "Bush Hater". It's because you're making excuses for Bush, and still claiming Iraq was the "right decision".

Iraq was a horrible decision strategically, tactically, financially, and politically.

Pretty much the only people who think that Iraq was in fact a "Good Decision" are avid fans of right-wing talking heads. That's because right-wing talking heads continuously say that Iraq was "the right decision". And repetition seems to make it believable to some people.

If you are some sort of odd, extremely rare exception, you will have to forgive my strong suspicion that you do in fact listen to some talking head or other on a regular basis. I tend to base my personal judgements on the odds in cases like this.

Facts are that every morning I listen to CNN Headline news for about 30 to 45 minutes then switch over to Fox and friends for maybe the same amount of time. From that point on the TV belongs to the Mrs. I don't watch anything else unless I get bored and look for a good movie. I get the rest of my news on the web and what I hear about talking heads usually comes from people like you. Nothing Odd about it. I think for myself. Most senior NCO's learned to do that.

And with the games Saddam was playing and admitted to, we made the right decision. Now where are the WMDs? Good question, ever read the Duelfer report? You should try it. Really interesting.
 

Forum List

Back
Top