G.O.P. Now Embraces War as Issue

Discussion in 'Politics' started by Bullypulpit, Jun 22, 2006.

  1. Bullypulpit
    Offline

    Bullypulpit Senior Member

    Joined:
    Jan 7, 2004
    Messages:
    5,849
    Thanks Received:
    378
    Trophy Points:
    48
    Location:
    Columbus, OH
    Ratings:
    +379
    A few weeks ago, skittish Republicans were distancing themselves from using the war in Iraq as a political issue. Now, apparently, <a href=http://www.nytimes.com/2006/06/22/washington/22capital.html?th&emc=th>they are embracing the war</a> with open arms.

    I say, "Let them."

    Let them embrace the failure to find WMD's, the reason for going to war with Iraq to begin with.

    Let them embrace the $320 billion dollar price tag to American tax-payers. After all, Paul Wolfowitz did say that Iraqi oil revenues would cover the costs of the war and reconstruction and former OMB DIrector Mitch Daniels estimated the cost to be in the neighborhood of $50 - $60 billion.

    Let them embrace the fact that Iraqi oil production is far below pre-war levels.

    Let them embrace the no bid contracts to Haliburton, which was operating at a loss prior to Dick Cheney ascending to Vice-President of the US.

    Let them embrace the BILLIONS of tax dollars that disappeared in Iraq under the oversight of Proconsul J. Paul Bremmer.

    Let them embrace the attrocities at Abu Ghraib.

    Let them embrace the failure to rebuild the infrastructure, which continues to provide water and electricity at below pre-war levels.

    Let them embrace the more than 2500 US soldiers who have died in Iraq and the nearly 20000 who have been wounded and maimed.

    Let them embrace the continued sectarian violence claiming Iraqi lives on a daily basis.

    Gosh, I could just go on and on!
     
  2. dilloduck
    Offline

    dilloduck Diamond Member

    Joined:
    May 8, 2004
    Messages:
    53,240
    Thanks Received:
    5,552
    Trophy Points:
    1,850
    Location:
    Austin, TX
    Ratings:
    +6,403
    Im just going to embrace the thought that the WOT is happening in Iraq and we are not sitting in foxholes in America waiting for the next tower to go down.
     
  3. Bullypulpit
    Offline

    Bullypulpit Senior Member

    Joined:
    Jan 7, 2004
    Messages:
    5,849
    Thanks Received:
    378
    Trophy Points:
    48
    Location:
    Columbus, OH
    Ratings:
    +379
    Iraq posed no threat , terrorist or otherwise, to America or its allies prior to the US invasion. Or have you forgotten...conveniently?
     
  4. CSM
    Offline

    CSM Senior Member

    Joined:
    Jul 7, 2004
    Messages:
    6,907
    Thanks Received:
    708
    Trophy Points:
    48
    Location:
    Northeast US
    Ratings:
    +708
    It's about time the Republican politicians get some balls....
     
  5. dilloduck
    Offline

    dilloduck Diamond Member

    Joined:
    May 8, 2004
    Messages:
    53,240
    Thanks Received:
    5,552
    Trophy Points:
    1,850
    Location:
    Austin, TX
    Ratings:
    +6,403
    Really--did you get that promise in writing from Saddam?:teeth:
     
  6. theHawk
    Offline

    theHawk Registered Conservative

    Joined:
    Sep 20, 2005
    Messages:
    10,901
    Thanks Received:
    2,072
    Trophy Points:
    280
    Location:
    Germany
    Ratings:
    +5,788
    oopsie. 500 canisters of WMD were just found. Solid proof he did have WMD.

    I guess everytime we feel the need to go to war, we need to weigh in the cash value. I would think you of all people would understand that putting a cash value on human freedom is amoral. Guess not...hypocrit.

    Our reason for going to war was not the presumption that post-war levels would be the same as pre-war.

    Should be thanking Clinton, Haliburton was arwarded contracts with his administration. Maybe you own a company that can do it better and cheaper then Haliburton?

    I don't think any of us would embrace wasting billions of dollars, except of course liberals embrace it when its distributed in welfare.

    Why would we? Those people broke US policy and were punished. But I understand you need to get your jab in at the military you hate so much.

    I'm sure you would embrace that, since it is people like you who embolden the terrorists to keep attacking. But maybe your right, next time we think about going to war with a country we should think about the fact they won't have reliable electricity, because people's water and electricity is more important than our national security needs.

    Yes, lets embrace those that have sacrificed to try to make this world a better place. As opposed to assholes like you that belittle their sacrifices at every chance while sitting behind a computer. Gutless coward.

    Freedom is a bitch isn't it? If only they had tyrant to keep them all in line!

    Never doubt the ability of a liberal to find ways to lose a war!
     
    • Thank You! Thank You! x 7
  7. dmp
    Offline

    dmp Senior Member

    Joined:
    May 12, 2004
    Messages:
    13,088
    Thanks Received:
    741
    Trophy Points:
    48
    Location:
    Enterprise, Alabama
    Ratings:
    +741
    Hawk - VERY good. Very good indeed.
     
  8. Bullypulpit
    Offline

    Bullypulpit Senior Member

    Joined:
    Jan 7, 2004
    Messages:
    5,849
    Thanks Received:
    378
    Trophy Points:
    48
    Location:
    Columbus, OH
    Ratings:
    +379
    Pre-Gulf War I, and not threat to anyone, according to Charles Duelfer. It's just Rick Santorum grasping for straws as he's 18 points down in the polls.

    So you admit Iraq was a war of choice? A war of agression should be considered in just such terms.

    <blockquote>We are helping to rebuild Iraq where the dictator built palaces for himself instead of hospitals and schools. - George W. Bush, 05/01/03</blockquote>

    THe only thig we're building is a massive ambassadorial compound and, at latest count, some 14 permanent military bases.

    As awarded through a bidding process

    Actually, I was thinking of US port security...Securing US nuclear and chemical facilities...body armor for US troops and up-armoring of US military vehicles.

    The only ones punished were a 5 or 6 enlisted personnel. No one higher up the chain of command has been given more than a letter of reprimand. If you remember the pictures, there wer many more than just 6 pairs of boots in those pictures.

    You win more hearts and minds by providing reliable infrastructure, police forces, healthcare and schools than you do by letting these services languish.


    I served honorably, I don't know about you, and don't care. I've had family serving with a artillery company in Iraq, repeatedly. So bite me.


    No, freedom is not "a bitch"...It is a responsibility which to many fail to grasp. And your grasp on it seems tenuous , at best.
     
  9. dmp
    Offline

    dmp Senior Member

    Joined:
    May 12, 2004
    Messages:
    13,088
    Thanks Received:
    741
    Trophy Points:
    48
    Location:
    Enterprise, Alabama
    Ratings:
    +741
    Oh yeah? You know those munitions weren't viable? That's your way of dismissing reality perhaps. Those gasses/chemicals can still be leathal. The issue isn't the age - the issue is, finding those munitions PROVES Saddam was in violation of the Cease-fire AND UN mandates.

    I suppose none of that matters to somebody like you - filled to the brim with hate for our country.

    War of choice? That's one of the stupidest terms I've heard on this board.

    You are ignorant. You need a LOT of education about Iraq and what goes on there. Turn OFF Air America.

    Again - how you can be so f'ing ignorant is beyond me. You make wild assumptions w/o having a grasp on facts. RESEARCH what you just said if you want to know the truth.

    That's what's happening. WTF are you talking about?

    Yet you bring dishonor upon your country now? weird.

    Hawk knows people need to have the scrote to go to war if that's the best solution. War IS the best solution to deal with people like Saddam.
     
  10. Bullypulpit
    Offline

    Bullypulpit Senior Member

    Joined:
    Jan 7, 2004
    Messages:
    5,849
    Thanks Received:
    378
    Trophy Points:
    48
    Location:
    Columbus, OH
    Ratings:
    +379
    <blockquote>"There was no hard intelligence of a current weapons program that would represent a new and compelling threat to our interests. Nor did the dossier at any stage admit the basic scientific fact the biological and chemical agents have a finite shelf life — a principle understood by every pharmacist...

    Even if Hussein had destroyed none of his arsenal from 1991, it would long ago have become useless." - Robin Cook, former British Foreign Secretary, 06/06/03</blockquote>

    <blockquote>"It's not, I think, thoroughly established to everybody's satisfaction that Iraq is, in fact, a threat. Threat requires capability, and I think that's pretty well established, at least on the chemical and biological front. But it also requires intent. And here, I think, reporting, the international consensus on this and a large measure of domestic commentary as well, I just don't think that case has been made. Certainly the Al-Qaeda link argument has been very, very fragile indeed, in the way that that's been articulated for, and the evidence that's been produced for it. So you've got a problem in establishing a threat itself, either to the neighborhood or to the wider U.S. and Western community." - Gareth Evans, before the Council on Foreign relations, 04/10/03</blockquote>

    <blockquote>"An additional good reason is that Iraq, however nasty a regime it has, hardly poses a threat to Europe or the United States. Some of us recall how Nasser, dictator/leader of Egypt, was built up in Europe and America as a 'new Hitler' on the Nile, who must not be appeased. This laid the popular basis for Israel, Britian and France's failed 'tri-partite aggression' against Egypt in late 1956. But Nasser had no Ruhr, no industrial base to threaten the West. It was a silly analogy. We have the same case today - Saddam Hussein also is no Hitler. He may have weapons of mass destruction but these days anybody can have those if they have enough anger and a willingness to risk the wrath of the West." - W. Scott Thompson, Ph.D., Adjunct Professor of International Politics, The Fletcher School, Tufts University, 03/18/03</blockquote>

    <blockquote>"Sanctions exist -- not for the purpose of hurting the Iraqi people, but for the purpose of keeping in check Saddam Hussein's ambitions toward developing weapons of mass destruction. We should constantly be reviewing our policies, constantly be looking at those sanctions to make sure that they are directed toward that purpose. That purpose is every bit as important now as it was ten years ago when we began it. And frankly they have worked. He has not developed any significant capability with respect to weapons of mass destruction. He is unable to project conventional power against his neighbors." - Colin Powell, US Secretary of State, 02/24/2001</blockquote>
     

Share This Page