Reagan Said It Best

[Wicked Jester]

Let's condense this exercise:

1. I've always said, amid howls of protest and disagreement, that the Iraq War was UNNECESSARY.

2. The current circumstances with North Korea mirror every single factor that was used to declare the Iraq War NECESSARY by those who believed that.

3. Therefore, those same people must believe that war with North Korea is now also NECESSARY.

4. Question: Why aren't those same people saying so? Are they tacitly admitting that their claim of the NECESSITY of the Iraq War was a crock of shit?

...I say yes...as I've been saying for many many many years...

This is of course way off topic.
Anyway, how many UN resolutions has North Korea violated? How many times have they violated the no fly zone? (oh yeah there is no no fly zone there).
Which terrorist groups has North Korean been funding? Which ones use North Korea for training areas?
The situations aren't remotely the same.
Another red herring from NYCarobhead.

WTF?

More Bizarro Land thinking from the Rabbi.

UN Violations? No Fly Zones? We have 4000 soldiers killed because of violation of a no fly zone? AlQaeida trained in Iraq? Whay don't you give us the Saddam participated in 9-11 nonsense

N Korea is a valid nuclear threat....Iraq wasn't

Go read my #115...Quit dancin' around the fuckin' issue.

It goes far beyond a "NO FLY ZONE"

You lib's are a joke.

Maybe if your other "BOY" Clinton had done the right thing in the first place, there wouldn't have been a 9/11 or Iraq war........Bin Laden played Clinton like a pawn.....Hussein played Clinton like a pawn..............What did both get from Clinton?......Cruise missiles aimed at absolutely NOTHING!

Loony liberal idiotic revisionist history is beyong laughable........It's fuckin' tragic on so many levels.......And only further proves that you fucks have no business running this great country........You people running this great country seems to always lead to chaos.

 

[The Rabbi]

This is of course way off topic.
Anyway, how many UN resolutions has North Korea violated? How many times have they violated the no fly zone? (oh yeah there is no no fly zone there).
Which terrorist groups has North Korean been funding? Which ones use North Korea for training areas?
The situations aren't remotely the same.
Another red herring from NYCarobhead.

WTF?

More Bizarro Land thinking from the Rabbi.

UN Violations? No Fly Zones? We have 4000 soldiers killed because of violation of a no fly zone? AlQaeida trained in Iraq? Whay don't you give us the Saddam participated in 9-11 nonsense

N Korea is a valid nuclear threat....Iraq wasn't

Go read my #115...Quit dancin' around the fuckin' issue.

It goes far beyond a "NO FLY ZONE"

You lib's are a joke.

Maybe if your other "BOY" Clinton had done the right thing in the first place, there wouldn't have been a 9/11 or Iraq war........Bin Laden played Clinton like a pawn.....Hussein played Clinton like a pawn..............What did both get from Clinton?......Cruise missiles aimed at absolutely NOTHING!

Loony liberal idiotic revisionist history is beyong laughable........It's fuckin' tragic on so many levels.......And only further proves that you fucks have no business running this great country........You people running this great country seems to always lead to chaos.

If it were up to the Left to write history the Revolutionary War would have been fought over a tea bag.

 

[daveman]

You just can't admit that Bush royally fucked up in diverting the war on terrorism and attacking Iraq, huh?

I can't admit what I don't believe is true. NOTE: Your stamping your feet and pouting is not likely to sway me.

And neither will 4000 dead US soldiers and 100,000 dead Iraqis

War is an ugly thing, but not the ugliest of things. The decayed and degraded state of moral and patriotic feeling which thinks that nothing is worth war is much worse. The person who has nothing for which he is willing to fight, nothing which is more important than his own personal safety, is a miserable creature and has no chance of being free unless made and kept so by the exertions of better men than himself.

-- John Stuart Mill

 

[daveman]

That would be bullshit.

I'm sure you like to believe so, but no, the facts are that Old Europe opposed the war because their money would be endangered.

Question for you. Is it immoral now for the U.S. NOT to invade North Korea?

If there is a people desperately in need of being freed from oppression, it's the North Koreans.

Morally, yes, I'd say we have a duty to free them. Practically, however, and unfortunately for them, it's not really an option.

And you lefties would shit your pants.

It's not an option? We can't defeat North Korea in a war? Are you daft? Besides, it's necessary isn't it,

I didn't say we couldn't defeat them militarily. Dumbass. I said it's not an option. NoKo would be defeated...but like all cowardly eftist regimes, they would take as many innocent people with them on their way out. I have no doubt Pyongyang would nuke Seoul.

I mean, ALL the conditions that were in place for the Iraq war are in place re North Korea,

Right.

...and the Iraq War was NECESSARY wasn't it?

I think it was. Most Democrats said it was, too...or they wouldn't have voted to start it and keep funding it.

When the Democrats took Congress, they could have stopped the war at any time.

They didn't.

But you refuse to hold them accountable.

So your opinion is immaterial.

 

[daveman]

Let's condense this exercise:

1. I've always said, amid howls of protest and disagreement, that the Iraq War was UNNECESSARY.

2. The current circumstances with North Korea mirror every single factor that was used to declare the Iraq War NECESSARY by those who believed that.

3. Therefore, those same people must believe that war with North Korea is now also NECESSARY.

4. Question: Why aren't those same people saying so? Are they tacitly admitting that their claim of the NECESSITY of the Iraq War was a crock of shit?

...I say yes...as I've been saying for many many many years...

Technically, we are still at war with North Korea. We could unleash hell any moment we wanted to, and be perfectly within our rights.

But you'd STILL bitch about it. I know you would. You know you would. Don't pretend you wouldn't.

 

[daveman]

Let's condense this exercise:

1. I've always said, amid howls of protest and disagreement, that the Iraq War was UNNECESSARY.

2. The current circumstances with North Korea mirror every single factor that was used to declare the Iraq War NECESSARY by those who believed that.

3. Therefore, those same people must believe that war with North Korea is now also NECESSARY.

4. Question: Why aren't those same people saying so? Are they tacitly admitting that their claim of the NECESSITY of the Iraq War was a crock of shit?

...I say yes...as I've been saying for many many many years...

This is of course way off topic.
Anyway, how many UN resolutions has North Korea violated? How many times have they violated the no fly zone? (oh yeah there is no no fly zone there).
Which terrorist groups has North Korean been funding? Which ones use North Korea for training areas?
The situations aren't remotely the same.
Another red herring from NYCarobhead.

WTF?

More Bizarro Land thinking from the Rabbi.

UN Violations? No Fly Zones? We have 4000 soldiers killed because of violation of a no fly zone? AlQaeida trained in Iraq? Whay don't you give us the Saddam participated in 9-11 nonsense

N Korea is a valid nuclear threat....Iraq wasn't

Then you'd support a unilateral attack on North Korea? You say it's a valid nuclear threat.

 

[Procrustes Stretched]

Ronald Reagan was the biggest phony to come down the pike

What would you want your president saying?
This

Every citizen in this country has a stake in the emergence of the United States as a leader in the free world.

Or this:

Don't forget......​

"I am not worried about the deficit. It is big enough to take care of itself."
*
"Facts are stupid things."
*
"Trees cause more pollution than automobiles."​

 

[DaGoose]

I'm sure you like to believe so, but no, the facts are that Old Europe opposed the war because their money would be endangered.

If there is a people desperately in need of being freed from oppression, it's the North Koreans.

Morally, yes, I'd say we have a duty to free them. Practically, however, and unfortunately for them, it's not really an option.

And you lefties would shit your pants.

It's not an option? We can't defeat North Korea in a war? Are you daft? Besides, it's necessary isn't it,

I didn't say we couldn't defeat them militarily. Dumbass. I said it's not an option. NoKo would be defeated...but like all cowardly eftist regimes, they would take as many innocent people with them on their way out. I have no doubt Pyongyang would nuke Seoul.

I mean, ALL the conditions that were in place for the Iraq war are in place re North Korea,

Right.

...and the Iraq War was NECESSARY wasn't it?

I think it was. Most Democrats said it was, too...or they wouldn't have voted to start it and keep funding it.

When the Democrats took Congress, they could have stopped the war at any time.

They didn't.

But you refuse to hold them accountable.

So your opinion is immaterial.

1) How could have the Dems "stopped the war"? (I think I know where your going but want to see if you say it.)

2) What makes you think "invading and occupying Iraq" justifies the deaths of over 4,000 of our military? (I can't wait to see your answer to this one!!)

 

[DaGoose]

This is of course way off topic.
Anyway, how many UN resolutions has North Korea violated? How many times have they violated the no fly zone? (oh yeah there is no no fly zone there).
Which terrorist groups has North Korean been funding? Which ones use North Korea for training areas?
The situations aren't remotely the same.
Another red herring from NYCarobhead.

WTF?

More Bizarro Land thinking from the Rabbi.

UN Violations? No Fly Zones? We have 4000 soldiers killed because of violation of a no fly zone? AlQaeida trained in Iraq? Whay don't you give us the Saddam participated in 9-11 nonsense

N Korea is a valid nuclear threat....Iraq wasn't

Go read my #115...Quit dancin' around the fuckin' issue.

It goes far beyond a "NO FLY ZONE"

You lib's are a joke.

Maybe if your other "BOY" Clinton had done the right thing in the first place, there wouldn't have been a 9/11 or Iraq war........Bin Laden played Clinton like a pawn.....Hussein played Clinton like a pawn..............What did both get from Clinton?......Cruise missiles aimed at absolutely NOTHING!

Loony liberal idiotic revisionist history is beyong laughable........It's fuckin' tragic on so many levels.......And only further proves that you fucks have no business running this great country........You people running this great country seems to always lead to chaos.

Uhhh.....Clinton tried to do the right thing and the GOP really raked him over the coals on it. For the TRUTH about that I suggest you watch the following then try to explain how you are NOT trying to "revise" history.

[ame]http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=kNoN403tXU4[/ame]

 

[FactFinder]

What would you want your president saying?
This

Every citizen in this country has a stake in the emergence of the United States as a leader in the free world.

Or this:

In America, there's a failure to appreciate Europe's leading role in the world. Instead of celebrating your dynamic union and seeking to partner with you to meet common challenges, there have been times where America has shown arrogance and been dismissive, even derisive.

Or this:
All those other egomaniacs are attempting to dominate the world. We laugh at such foolishness. We will stay home and make America the best damn country on the planet and leave the fools to wallow in their misery.

 

[The Rabbi]

It's not an option? We can't defeat North Korea in a war? Are you daft? Besides, it's necessary isn't it,

I didn't say we couldn't defeat them militarily. Dumbass. I said it's not an option. NoKo would be defeated...but like all cowardly eftist regimes, they would take as many innocent people with them on their way out. I have no doubt Pyongyang would nuke Seoul.

Right.

...and the Iraq War was NECESSARY wasn't it?

I think it was. Most Democrats said it was, too...or they wouldn't have voted to start it and keep funding it.

When the Democrats took Congress, they could have stopped the war at any time.

They didn't.

But you refuse to hold them accountable.

So your opinion is immaterial.

1) How could have the Dems "stopped the war"? (I think I know where your going but want to see if you say it.)

2) What makes you think "invading and occupying Iraq" justifies the deaths of over 4,000 of our military? (I can't wait to see your answer to this one!!)

1) Cut off funding. Congress has the power of the purse.
2) The reasons for the Iraq War have been discussed ad nauseam on this site and elsewhere. The search function is your friend. Historically 4000 deaths is miniscule. The U.S. suffered that many on D-Day.

 

[The T]

Ronald Reagan was the biggest phony to come down the pike

What would you want your president saying?
This


Or this:

Don't forget......​

"I am not worried about the deficit. It is big enough to take care of itself."

*
"Facts are stupid things."
*

"Trees cause more pollution than automobiles."​

psst...hey stupid? This thread isn't about Reagan...only you idiot statists assumed it...

 

[The Rabbi]

Dainty is a grande-sized moron. Best ignored unless you want some easy scores.

 

[DaGoose]

I didn't say we couldn't defeat them militarily. Dumbass. I said it's not an option. NoKo would be defeated...but like all cowardly eftist regimes, they would take as many innocent people with them on their way out. I have no doubt Pyongyang would nuke Seoul.

Right.

I think it was. Most Democrats said it was, too...or they wouldn't have voted to start it and keep funding it.

When the Democrats took Congress, they could have stopped the war at any time.

They didn't.

But you refuse to hold them accountable.

So your opinion is immaterial.

1) How could have the Dems "stopped the war"? (I think I know where your going but want to see if you say it.)

2) What makes you think "invading and occupying Iraq" justifies the deaths of over 4,000 of our military? (I can't wait to see your answer to this one!!)

1) Cut off funding. Congress has the power of the purse.
2) The reasons for the Iraq War have been discussed ad nauseam on this site and elsewhere. The search function is your friend. Historically 4000 deaths is miniscule. The U.S. suffered that many on D-Day.

1) Since Bush had already committed us to war it has to be seen all the way through. To not do do would invite even a bigger blunder than invading and occupying in the first place.

2) I'm convinced that anyone who tries to justify the deaths of our military by invading and occupying Iraq really has no respect at all for our military. There was absolutely no reason to attack a nation that was 100% contained and posed no threat to us, our interests or anyone else.

 

[The Rabbi]

Then why did the Dems in Congress vote to oppose the war about 50 different times?
There were many reasons vital to U.S. policy and goals. The deaths were regrettable but expected and historically low for such a mission.

 

[editec]

WTF?

More Bizarro Land thinking from the Rabbi.

UN Violations? No Fly Zones? We have 4000 soldiers killed because of violation of a no fly zone? AlQaeida trained in Iraq? Whay don't you give us the Saddam participated in 9-11 nonsense

N Korea is a valid nuclear threat....Iraq wasn't

Go read my #115...Quit dancin' around the fuckin' issue.

It goes far beyond a "NO FLY ZONE"

You lib's are a joke.

Maybe if your other "BOY" Clinton had done the right thing in the first place, there wouldn't have been a 9/11 or Iraq war........Bin Laden played Clinton like a pawn.....Hussein played Clinton like a pawn..............What did both get from Clinton?......Cruise missiles aimed at absolutely NOTHING!

Loony liberal idiotic revisionist history is beyong laughable........It's fuckin' tragic on so many levels.......And only further proves that you fucks have no business running this great country........You people running this great country seems to always lead to chaos.

If it were up to the Left to write history the Revolutionary War would have been fought over a tea bag.

This "lefty" thinks that discontent of the colonies included:

1. Laws that prevented colonies from manufacturing most goods, and from buying goods from nations other than England.

2. Limitations on settling past the Alleganies

3. Demands that the colonies pay for the costs of the French and Indian wars (with taxes on goods purchased from England or via English monopoloes), and laws allowing English troops to billet in people's homes.

TEA, FWIW, was one of the items that were taxed.

Hence the tea party as a form of protest.

 

[The Rabbi]

Go read my #115...Quit dancin' around the fuckin' issue.

It goes far beyond a "NO FLY ZONE"

You lib's are a joke.

Maybe if your other "BOY" Clinton had done the right thing in the first place, there wouldn't have been a 9/11 or Iraq war........Bin Laden played Clinton like a pawn.....Hussein played Clinton like a pawn..............What did both get from Clinton?......Cruise missiles aimed at absolutely NOTHING!

Loony liberal idiotic revisionist history is beyong laughable........It's fuckin' tragic on so many levels.......And only further proves that you fucks have no business running this great country........You people running this great country seems to always lead to chaos.

If it were up to the Left to write history the Revolutionary War would have been fought over a tea bag.

This "lefty" thinks that discontent of the colonies included:

1. Laws that prevented colonies from manufacturing most goods, and from buying goods from nations other than England.

2. Limitations on settling past the Alleganies

3. Demands that the colonies pay for the costs of the French and Indian wars (with taxes on goods purchased from England or via English monopoloes), and laws allowing English troops to billet in people's homes.

TEA, FWIW, was one of the items that were taxed.

Hence the tea party as a form of protest.

So you want to justify the deaths of thousands so we could have sweatshops in thsi country, so the rich could go live on big plantations in MS, so we could get a free ride from the British military and drink cheap tea? You heartless bastard, you.

 

[DaGoose]

Then why did the Dems in Congress vote to oppose the war about 50 different times?
There were many reasons vital to U.S. policy and goals. The deaths were regrettable but expected and historically low for such a mission.

There's one helluva difference between voting to oppose the war and cutting off funding for the troops.

"Regrettable"? You're damned right they were regrettable. I don't consider even one American death is justified in attacking and occupying a nation that posed absolutely no threat to anyone.

Please explain what "goals" the US had that would, in your mind, justify the deaths of over 4,000 of our military men and women. It's an important question. (Remember, you're saying that the lives of these men and women are worth it.)

 

[The Rabbi]

Then why did the Dems in Congress vote to oppose the war about 50 different times?
There were many reasons vital to U.S. policy and goals. The deaths were regrettable but expected and historically low for such a mission.

There's one helluva difference between voting to oppose the war and cutting off funding for the troops.

"Regrettable"? You're damned right they were regrettable. I don't consider even one American death is justified in attacking and occupying a nation that posed absolutely no threat to anyone.

Please explain what "goals" the US had that would, in your mind, justify the deaths of over 4,000 of our military men and women. It's an important question. (Remember, you're saying that the lives of these men and women are worth it.)

Yes, the difference is that one requires conviction and the other is merely posturing for the electorate.
Iraq posed no threat to anyone? Really? Have you been asleep for 30 years?
As to the goals, go back and review some of the 100's of threads on this topic.

 

[DaGoose]

Then why did the Dems in Congress vote to oppose the war about 50 different times?
There were many reasons vital to U.S. policy and goals. The deaths were regrettable but expected and historically low for such a mission.

There's one helluva difference between voting to oppose the war and cutting off funding for the troops.

"Regrettable"? You're damned right they were regrettable. I don't consider even one American death is justified in attacking and occupying a nation that posed absolutely no threat to anyone.

Please explain what "goals" the US had that would, in your mind, justify the deaths of over 4,000 of our military men and women. It's an important question. (Remember, you're saying that the lives of these men and women are worth it.)

Yes, the difference is that one requires conviction and the other is merely posturing for the electorate.
Iraq posed no threat to anyone? Really? Have you been asleep for 30 years?
As to the goals, go back and review some of the 100's of threads on this topic.

Are you really that dense? Denying needed funding for the military is not an option when they are in the middle of a fight that Bush started. It would be akin to denying an airliner fuel in mid-flight.

As for you justifying the deaths of our military I gues your answer is, "No answer". And that's fine!! I wouldn't be able to answer and justify it either.