Reagan Said It Best

[NYcarbineer]

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.

The Democrats voted against the Iraq war.

I love how you're obfuscating about the necessity to invade North Korea while trying to cling to your belief that the Iraq invasion was necessary.

 

[NYcarbineer]

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.

North Korea HAS been violating ceasefire/armistice terms for decades. North Korea has/has been seeking WMD's. North Korea oppresse its people.

All, or ANY, of those conditions justified the NECESSITY of the Iraq war remember? Remember all the clowns saying that even when Iraq was found not to have WMD's that they still believed the war was justified? Remember how 'liberating the Iraq people' ultimately became the last ditch reason why the war was necessary?

So, why isn't war with North Korea NECESSARY?

 

[NYcarbineer]

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

and the Iraq War was NECESSARY wasn't it?

It's not about the North Koreans if we went to war, dumbass........It's about the Chinese....They are the ones we would be ultimately going to war with.


Do you EVER have a clue as to what the fuck you are talking about?

Hey, Cretin, a war is either necessary or it isn't. Iraq was NECESSARY, right? No way to avoid it, right?

Then why isn't a war with North Korea NECESSARY? Same conditions. Same 'threats'.

In case any of you aren't paying attention, I'm simply PROVING that those of us who said and continue to say that the Iraq War was UNNECESSARY, that our troops were sent to their deaths UNNECESSARILY, are absolutely right.

 

[NYcarbineer]

[
This is of course way off topic.
.

LOL. This thread never had a topic.

 

[NYcarbineer]

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.

Of course I would because it is UNNECESSARY. Just like Iraq was UNNECESSARY.

We were still technically at war with Iraq too remember?

Funny I can't get you to simply say whether the Iraq invasion was necessary. And whether invasion of NK is now necessary.

 

[The Rabbi]

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.

If the war was wrong then the right thing would have been to stop it. Are you saying that it was OK to let thousands of Americans get killed for nothing?
Are you still maintaining Iraq was not a threat to anyone? I mean, given Saddam's 30 year career of funding and supporting terrorism, which is why Bush singled him out.

 

[DaGoose]

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.

If the war was wrong then the right thing would have been to stop it. Are you saying that it was OK to let thousands of Americans get killed for nothing?
Are you still maintaining Iraq was not a threat to anyone? I mean, given Saddam's 30 year career of funding and supporting terrorism, which is why Bush singled him out.

Now your showing your naivety of foreign policy. Let's say we "simply stopped and went home". Not only would we have left without fixing the damage that we caused (whereby the Iraq people would hate us even more) then Iran would have gladly taken over our role. And not to mention that Al-Qaeda (who never had any real presence in Iraq before the invasion) would be ale to spread its influence among the Iraqis and recruit even more terrorists. Bottom line? To simply go home would have created a problem 100 times larger than we had before we invaded.

Why go after the only truly contained nation in the middle east? Why not go after Libya or Iran? Besides, Bush said the reason for invading was WMD. In fact, he said if Saddam produced the WMD (which he didn't have) then Bush would not invade and send thousands of our military personnel to their deaths.

 

[The Rabbi]

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.

If the war was wrong then the right thing would have been to stop it. Are you saying that it was OK to let thousands of Americans get killed for nothing?
Are you still maintaining Iraq was not a threat to anyone? I mean, given Saddam's 30 year career of funding and supporting terrorism, which is why Bush singled him out.

Now your showing your naivety of foreign policy. Let's say we "simply stopped and went home". Not only would we have left without fixing the damage that we caused (whereby the Iraq people would hate us even more) then Iran would have gladly taken over our role. And not to mention that Al-Qaeda (who never had any real presence in Iraq before the invasion) would be ale to spread its influence among the Iraqis and recruit even more terrorists. Bottom line? To simply go home would have created a problem 100 times larger than we had before we invaded.

Why go after the only truly contained nation in the middle east? Why not go after Libya or Iran? Besides, Bush said the reason for invading was WMD. In fact, he said if Saddam produced the WMD (which he didn't have) then Bush would not invade and send thousands of our military personnel to their deaths.

If stopping the war and going home was wrong then why did the Democrats sponsor resolution after resolution advocating exactly that?

 

[daveman]

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

Cut off the money. They didn't do that.

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!!)

It's brought an increasing amount of stability to an unstable region. It's allowed the Iraqi people to have a say in their own future. It's developing an ally and trading partner.

Hint: All those are good things.

You'll have a difficult time convincing me that your opposition to the invasion is more due to concern for our military than opposition to whatever Bush wanted.

 

[Procrustes Stretched]

What did Reagan promise to do?

*Balance the budget

*End draft registration.

*Eliminate Department of Energy

*Eliminate Department of Education

*Get the government off our backs

-----------------------------------------------

One example of Reagan's real record of accomplishments from those evil socialists at the CATO Institute:

With Reagan's election in November 1980, various commentators expected registration to be one of the first programs to be swept away by the Reagan Revolution. But it was the middle of 1981 before he even established the Military Manpower Task Force to review the issue. Several tortuous months of bureaucratic warfare then ensued before Reagan announced, on January 7, 1982, that "we live in a dangerous world" and that he was maintaining registration.[2]

Draft Registration: It's Time to Repeal Carter's Final Legacy | Doug Bandow | Cato Institute: Policy Analysis

Watch for this type of revelation from Tea Party conservatives who've found religion --- or found a way to emulate Reagan and break promises.

 

[daveman]

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.

How easy would it have been to pass a law that said, "We allocate the sum of $50 billion to be used solely on re-deploying personnel and assets from the Iraqi Theater of Operations."

It would have been very easy. You're just making excuses for the Democrats.

 

[daveman]

The Democrats voted against the Iraq war.

But then they kept paying the bills when they could have stopped the money.

I love how you're obfuscating about the necessity to invade North Korea while trying to cling to your belief that the Iraq invasion was necessary.

I'm not obfuscating. I've made my position quite clear. Your inability or unwillingness to understand what I'm saying says more about you than it does me.

 

[The T]

What did Reagan promise to do?

*Balance the budget

*End draft registration.

*Eliminate Department of Energy

*Eliminate Department of Education

*Get the government off our backs

-----------------------------------------------

One example of Reagan's real record of accomplishments from those evil socialists at the CATO Institute:

With Reagan's election in November 1980, various commentators expected registration to be one of the first programs to be swept away by the Reagan Revolution. But it was the middle of 1981 before he even established the Military Manpower Task Force to review the issue. Several tortuous months of bureaucratic warfare then ensued before Reagan announced, on January 7, 1982, that "we live in a dangerous world" and that he was maintaining registration.[2]

Draft Registration: It's Time to Repeal Carter's Final Legacy | Doug Bandow | Cato Institute: Policy Analysis

Watch for this type of revelation from Tea Party conservatives who've found religion --- or found a way to emulate Reagan and break promises.

And Democrats and some Repubicans saw to it Government got larger.

End of story. And this thread isn't of Reagan goofball...but plod on will you?

 

[Procrustes Stretched]

The true legacy of Ronald Reagan

After pushing the biggest tax cut in U.S. history ($749 billion over five years) through a reluctant Congress and proposing $1.7 trillion in military spending in the next six years, could he also keep his promise to balance the federal budget by 1984? No way, his critics had insisted. As the recession further depressed revenues...Reagan moved toward a difficult decision: he would not keep his pledge to balance the budget, but would hold firm to his 1982 tax cuts and permit only limited tax hikes later.

Read more: Bye Bye, Balanced Budget - TIME

 

[Full-Auto]

What did Reagan promise to do?

*Balance the budget

*End draft registration.

*Eliminate Department of Energy

*Eliminate Department of Education

*Get the government off our backs

-----------------------------------------------

One example of Reagan's real record of accomplishments from those evil socialists at the CATO Institute:

With Reagan's election in November 1980, various commentators expected registration to be one of the first programs to be swept away by the Reagan Revolution. But it was the middle of 1981 before he even established the Military Manpower Task Force to review the issue. Several tortuous months of bureaucratic warfare then ensued before Reagan announced, on January 7, 1982, that "we live in a dangerous world" and that he was maintaining registration.[2]

Draft Registration: It's Time to Repeal Carter's Final Legacy | Doug Bandow | Cato Institute: Policy Analysis

Watch for this type of revelation from Tea Party conservatives who've found religion --- or found a way to emulate Reagan and break promises.

But democrats not keeping the spending promises made to Reagen is OK.

Sure buddy, you just forgot to mention it.

 

[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.

Of course I would because it is UNNECESSARY. Just like Iraq was UNNECESSARY.

We were still technically at war with Iraq too remember?

Funny I can't get you to simply say whether the Iraq invasion was necessary. And whether invasion of NK is now necessary.

You're really not paying attention, are you?

Invading Iraq was necessary, and relatively cheap in terms of human lives

Invading NoKo is necessary, but prohibitively costly in terms of human lives.

If we could eliminate all NoKo leadership in one swoop, it'd be great, but the question becomes the depth of programming of the NoKo troops. Would they fight on, even without leadership from Pyongyang? Remember, the North Korean people know nothing but what their government has told them and are inculcated with a fanatical devotion to Dear Leader. Can they break free of that, or would they rather die fighting the imperialists?

You may choose to break this down to protest-sign slogans, but the reality is far more complex.

 

[G.T.]

One sounds like an arrogant know-it-all douchebag.....which, ask any female, that isn't marriage material.............................

and one sounds like a pragmatist who favors all ideas on the table, to weigh and deliberate.

 

[Procrustes Stretched]

and then truth shall set you free or rive you insane.

And Democrats and some Repubicans saw to it Government got larger.

End of story. And this thread isn't of Reagan goofball...but plod on will you?

By November 1982, unemployment reached, nine million, the highest rate since the Depression; 17,000 businesses failed, the second highest number since 1933; farmers lost their land; and many sick, elderly, and poor became homeless.

The American Experience | Reagan | People & Events | The 1982 Recession

 

[Sallow]

But then they kept paying the bills when they could have stopped the money.

Which President has ever been denied a war they wanted?

 

[Sallow]

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.

Of course I would because it is UNNECESSARY. Just like Iraq was UNNECESSARY.

We were still technically at war with Iraq too remember?

Funny I can't get you to simply say whether the Iraq invasion was necessary. And whether invasion of NK is now necessary.

You're really not paying attention, are you?

Invading Iraq was necessary, and relatively cheap in terms of human lives

Invading NoKo is necessary, but prohibitively costly in terms of human lives.

If we could eliminate all NoKo leadership in one swoop, it'd be great, but the question becomes the depth of programming of the NoKo troops. Would they fight on, even without leadership from Pyongyang? Remember, the North Korean people know nothing but what their government has told them and are inculcated with a fanatical devotion to Dear Leader. Can they break free of that, or would they rather die fighting the imperialists?

You may choose to break this down to protest-sign slogans, but the reality is far more complex.

Lunacy and completely naive.

Pure and simple on both counts.