That was Cold War, with capital letters, and by it I meant the arms race and brink-of-war sentiment from the '50s to the early '90s between the USA and the USSR. I believe it ended as the USSR disintegrated and the arms race no longer ensued. Also, the threat of nuclear war was decreased substancially, but of course not altogether gone.
Navigation
Install the app
How to install the app on iOS
Follow along with the video below to see how to install our site as a web app on your home screen.
Note: This feature currently requires accessing the site using the built-in Safari browser.
More options
You are using an out of date browser. It may not display this or other websites correctly.
You should upgrade or use an alternative browser.
You should upgrade or use an alternative browser.
The War on Terror is a War for Oil in Disguise
- Thread starter Paul Revere
- Start date
That was Cold War, with capital letters, and by it I meant the arms race and brink-of-war sentiment from the '50s to the early '90s between the USA and the USSR. I believe it ended as the USSR disintegrated and the arms race no longer ensued. Also, the threat of nuclear war was decreased substancially, but of course not altogether gone.
this sounds like a very defeatist attitude.
"unless it is carpet bombing the entire muslim nation and killing every man woman and child it is a war you will never win. as soon as you put boots on the ground americain soliders will continue to die the battle will rage on, a war without end"
The war on terrorism will take time.
It wasnt that long ago, we had a hundred years war.
If you dont know history, you are doomed to repeat, it,
We dont have to carpet bomb every man woman and child, and we can still win the war on terrorism.
"unless it is carpet bombing the entire muslim nation and killing every man woman and child it is a war you will never win. as soon as you put boots on the ground americain soliders will continue to die the battle will rage on, a war without end"
The war on terrorism will take time.
It wasnt that long ago, we had a hundred years war.
If you dont know history, you are doomed to repeat, it,
We dont have to carpet bomb every man woman and child, and we can still win the war on terrorism.
the war on terrorism is not comparable to the cold war.
Al queda is not the russian empire. They will use nukes, they are not rational.
Al queda is not the russian empire. They will use nukes, they are not rational.
eots
no fly list
the war on terrorism is not comparable to the cold war.
no your right its comparable to the war on drugs" or "the war on poverty"
and we all know what a great success thats been,when ever you declare a war on something other than a country ,it always seems to fail or create more of the very thing "war" has been declared on
the war on terrorism is not comparable to the cold war.
Actsnoblemartin: Absolutely EXCELLENT anaology. Your are 1000% right, having a war on drugs, or poverty is kind of like having a war on cancer, how do you kill the cancer without killing the patient, im not saying give up, im just saying your analysis is brilliant sir. Its very difficult.
no your right its comparable to the war on drugs" or "the war on poverty"
and we all know what a great success thats been,when ever you declare a war on something other than a country ,it always seems to fail or create more of the very thing "war" has been declared on
red states rule
Senior Member
- May 30, 2006
- 16,011
- 573
- 48
Since libs are always asking what victory is in Iraq - I would like to ask libs what they consider victory in the war on poverty
the war on terrorism is not comparable to the cold war.
Al queda is not the russian empire. They will use nukes, they are not rational.
I wasn't comparing the two directly, I know they are very different. I was comparing the attitudes toward victories in the two conflicts. The Cold War didn't seem like it could end without total destruction of either country. The war on terror doesnt seem like it can end, as was posted here, without 'carpet bombing every man woman and child.' Similarity? Methinks so.
I wasn't comparing the two directly, I know they are very different. I was comparing the attitudes toward victories in the two conflicts. The Cold War didn't seem like it could end without total destruction of either country. The war on terror doesnt seem like it can end, as was posted here, without 'carpet bombing every man woman and child.' Similarity? Methinks so.
Can you explain what you mean above?.
Can you explain what you mean above?.
eots
no fly list
Immortal Technique
They say the rebels in Iraq still fight for Saddam
But that's bullshit, I'll show you why it's totally wrong
Cuz if another country invaded the hood tonight
It'd be warfare through Harlem, and Washington Heights
I wouldn't be fightin' for Bush or White America's dream
I'd be fightin' for my people's survival and self-esteem
I wouldn't fight for racist churches from the south, my nigga
I'd be fightin' to keep the occupation out, my nigga
You ever clock someone who talk shit, or look at you wrong?
Imagine if they shot at you, and was rapin' your moms
And of course Saddam Hussein had chemical weapons
We sold him that shit, after Ronald Reagan's election
Mercenary contractors fightin' a new era
Corporate military bankin' off the war on terror
They controllin' the ghetto, with the failed attack
Tryna distract the fact that they engineerin' the crack
So I'm strapped like Lee Malvo holdin' a sniper rifle
These bullets'll touch your kids, and I don't mean like Michael
Your body be sent to the morgue, stripped down and recycled
I fire on house niggaz that support you and like you
Cuz innocent people get murdered in the struggle daily
And poor people never get shit and struggle daily
This ain't no alien conspiracy theory, this shit is real
Written on the dollar underneath the Masonic seal
(I don't rap for dead presidents
I'd rather see the president dead
It's never been said but I set precedents)--[Eminem]
They say the rebels in Iraq still fight for Saddam
But that's bullshit, I'll show you why it's totally wrong
Cuz if another country invaded the hood tonight
It'd be warfare through Harlem, and Washington Heights
I wouldn't be fightin' for Bush or White America's dream
I'd be fightin' for my people's survival and self-esteem
I wouldn't fight for racist churches from the south, my nigga
I'd be fightin' to keep the occupation out, my nigga
You ever clock someone who talk shit, or look at you wrong?
Imagine if they shot at you, and was rapin' your moms
And of course Saddam Hussein had chemical weapons
We sold him that shit, after Ronald Reagan's election
Mercenary contractors fightin' a new era
Corporate military bankin' off the war on terror
They controllin' the ghetto, with the failed attack
Tryna distract the fact that they engineerin' the crack
So I'm strapped like Lee Malvo holdin' a sniper rifle
These bullets'll touch your kids, and I don't mean like Michael
Your body be sent to the morgue, stripped down and recycled
I fire on house niggaz that support you and like you
Cuz innocent people get murdered in the struggle daily
And poor people never get shit and struggle daily
This ain't no alien conspiracy theory, this shit is real
Written on the dollar underneath the Masonic seal
(I don't rap for dead presidents
I'd rather see the president dead
It's never been said but I set precedents)--[Eminem]
I agree that poor people in america have it hard, most suburban white kids, dont know what its like to have to worry about drugs and drive by shootings.
I do however believe the war in iraq was a noble idea, that hopefully we can salvage. Eots, I dont think your idealog, I think your a smart guy.
Have a nice night
Immortal Technique
They say the rebels in Iraq still fight for Saddam
But that's bullshit, I'll show you why it's totally wrong
Cuz if another country invaded the hood tonight
It'd be warfare through Harlem, and Washington Heights
I wouldn't be fightin' for Bush or White America's dream
I'd be fightin' for my people's survival and self-esteem
I wouldn't fight for racist churches from the south, my nigga
I'd be fightin' to keep the occupation out, my nigga
You ever clock someone who talk shit, or look at you wrong?
Imagine if they shot at you, and was rapin' your moms
And of course Saddam Hussein had chemical weapons
We sold him that shit, after Ronald Reagan's election
Mercenary contractors fightin' a new era
Corporate military bankin' off the war on terror
They controllin' the ghetto, with the failed attack
Tryna distract the fact that they engineerin' the crack
So I'm strapped like Lee Malvo holdin' a sniper rifle
These bullets'll touch your kids, and I don't mean like Michael
Your body be sent to the morgue, stripped down and recycled
I fire on house niggaz that support you and like you
Cuz innocent people get murdered in the struggle daily
And poor people never get shit and struggle daily
This ain't no alien conspiracy theory, this shit is real
Written on the dollar underneath the Masonic seal
(I don't rap for dead presidents
I'd rather see the president dead
It's never been said but I set precedents)--[Eminem]
I do however believe the war in iraq was a noble idea, that hopefully we can salvage. Eots, I dont think your idealog, I think your a smart guy.
Have a nice night
Immortal Technique
They say the rebels in Iraq still fight for Saddam
But that's bullshit, I'll show you why it's totally wrong
Cuz if another country invaded the hood tonight
It'd be warfare through Harlem, and Washington Heights
I wouldn't be fightin' for Bush or White America's dream
I'd be fightin' for my people's survival and self-esteem
I wouldn't fight for racist churches from the south, my nigga
I'd be fightin' to keep the occupation out, my nigga
You ever clock someone who talk shit, or look at you wrong?
Imagine if they shot at you, and was rapin' your moms
And of course Saddam Hussein had chemical weapons
We sold him that shit, after Ronald Reagan's election
Mercenary contractors fightin' a new era
Corporate military bankin' off the war on terror
They controllin' the ghetto, with the failed attack
Tryna distract the fact that they engineerin' the crack
So I'm strapped like Lee Malvo holdin' a sniper rifle
These bullets'll touch your kids, and I don't mean like Michael
Your body be sent to the morgue, stripped down and recycled
I fire on house niggaz that support you and like you
Cuz innocent people get murdered in the struggle daily
And poor people never get shit and struggle daily
This ain't no alien conspiracy theory, this shit is real
Written on the dollar underneath the Masonic seal
(I don't rap for dead presidents
I'd rather see the president dead
It's never been said but I set precedents)--[Eminem]
red states rule
Senior Member
- May 30, 2006
- 16,011
- 573
- 48
The Democrats' Surge on Iraq
By Daniel Henninger
Carried aloft on the gassy fumes of politics, the congressional Democrats may be overshooting on Iraq. Six months from now, they may wish they had been more temperate. Helped finally by the right U.S. military strategy, the Iraq nightmare might be ebbing. Then what?
No such thought intrudes today on Democratic politics. Buoyed by President Bush's 30-something approval and with disaffection over the war at 60%, Senate Majority Leader Reid can promise to sign on to Russ Feingold's pull-the-plug bill; and House Speaker Pelosi, as if making foie gras, can cram an Iraq-withdrawal bill down the gullets of her chamber's membership. The polls are with Harry and Nancy. What can go wrong?
What could go wrong is that the U.S. military's "surge" could go right. The surge, led by Gen. David Petraeus and formally known as the Baghdad Security Plan, is a real strategy being executed by real people on the ground in Iraq. For the past several months, since President Bush announced the plan, the Democratic leadership has acted as if this effort were so irrelevant as to not exist. Why bother? The House leadership has its own "surge" up and running in Washington against the enemy in the White House.
The Democrats' D.C. surge began in February when Rep. John Murtha announced plans to shut off the war. What followed was a six-week push by the Pelosi team toward a March vote on a date-certain pullout. Across those weeks, this domestic offensive has been the big story in our politics. Add in as well the theater of operations opened by Democratic Lt. Gen. Chuck Schumer's siege of the Justice Department.
This is heady stuff, rolling a president off the field, so heady the Democrats may be allowing their compulsions to make them the one force thwarting a much longed-for military success in Iraq. This in turn could leave the Democratic Party on the wrong side of the most revered institution in American life--the U.S. military. That is, back where they were when Bill Clinton was president. The "we support the troops" mantra will ring hollow if the Democrats are pulling out Army and Marine personnel just as they're gaining on the killers of their comrades.
The timelines for the Iraq surge announced on Jan. 10 and the Democrats' surge to shut it down have run in tandem.
On Jan. 23 Gen. Petraeus offered the Senate Armed Services Committee an outline of the surge. By Feb. 8, U.S. paratroopers and engineers in Baghdad had quickly put together 10 Joint Security Stations, the new command centers to be operated with Iraq's security forces. (The material for the surge timeline here comes from the excellent "Iraq Report" compiled by Kimberly Kagan, director of the Institute for the Study of War and published biweekly on the Web site of the Weekly Standard.)
On Feb. 10, Gen. Petraeus arrived to take command of these forces in Baghdad. In the second week of February, U.S. troops conducted 20,000 patrols compared to 7,400 the week before.
On Feb. 16, the House of Representatives passed a resolution, 246-182, to oppose the mission. Nancy Pelosi: "The stakes in Iraq are too high to recycle proposals that have little prospect for success." That might not be true. It might indeed succeed.
Through February and into March, the U.S.-Iraqi forces moved into neighborhoods on the edge of Sadr City, stronghold of Shiite militias. "While the house-to-house operations continued," Ms. Kagan writes, "U.S. and Iraqi forces also interdicted the flow of fighters and supplies through those neighborhoods into Sadr City."
Meanwhile, House Democrats worked on a bill to force the withdrawal of U.S. troops by fall 2008.
On March 4, 600 U.S. and 550 Iraqi forces commenced house-to-house searches in Sadr City's Jamil neighborhood. Also in early March, with little fanfare, U.S. and Iraqi forces arrested 16 individuals connected with the Jaysh al-Mahdi cell, suspected of sectarian kidnappings and killings.
On March 23, the House voted 218-212 to remove these U.S. forces by August's end, 2008.
It's not quite three months since the surge began in Iraq, and some early assessments of the operation have emerged. They are positive. Keep in mind that this strategy emerged from military reassessment over the past year, led largely by Gen. Petraeus; this isn't a pick-up team.
Testifying last Wednesday to a House Armed Services subcommittee, military historian Fred Kagan, who has criticized administration policies, noted that the Iraqi army is "now larger than the standing armies of France and Great Britain." The nine Iraqi army battalions called for in the surge have arrived, at over 90% of programmed strength. "They are taking casualties, inflicting casualties on the enemy and helping to maintain and establish peace for the people of Baghdad," said Mr. Kagan.
A report filed last week by retired Army Gen. Barry McCaffrey gets the political-military dynamic just right. He notes that we are "in a position of strategic peril there. But he then describes in detail how since early February the situation on the ground has "measurably improved." Thus the conclusion: "We now need a last powerful effort to provide to U.S. leaders on the ground the political support . . . and military strength it requires to succeed."
Gen. Petraeus himself in recent interviews has been careful not to oversell this early success. But it is difficult to imagine that the American public would want to hang its military with a failure if a better outcome is in reach. Failed wars exact a price. During Vietnam, between 1966 and 1973 support for the U.S. military dropped from 62% to 32%. We're not there, yet. From 2002 till now polls have found a combined favorable view toward the military of around 85%. But withdrawing these American troops on the cusp of a reasonable success could do long-term damage.
No one can simply assume that we would avoid a decline in faith in the army as an effective American institution deserving financial support, as happened with the post-Vietnam defense cuts. As bad, it could force a failed military class--officers to grunts--to rebuild, again, the ethos and esprit necessary to defend us from the next threat. That takes time. We don't have time.
If the Iraq surge is succeeding, the Democrats' surge should stand down. If a year from now the Petraeus plan is foundering, the Democrats will have plenty of time to hang it around the GOP's neck by demanding a legitimate withdrawal date--November 2008. But not now.
Daniel Henninger is deputy editor of The Wall Street Journal's editorial page.
http://www.realclearpolitics.com/articles/2007/04/will_dems_thwart_success_in_ir.html
By Daniel Henninger
Carried aloft on the gassy fumes of politics, the congressional Democrats may be overshooting on Iraq. Six months from now, they may wish they had been more temperate. Helped finally by the right U.S. military strategy, the Iraq nightmare might be ebbing. Then what?
No such thought intrudes today on Democratic politics. Buoyed by President Bush's 30-something approval and with disaffection over the war at 60%, Senate Majority Leader Reid can promise to sign on to Russ Feingold's pull-the-plug bill; and House Speaker Pelosi, as if making foie gras, can cram an Iraq-withdrawal bill down the gullets of her chamber's membership. The polls are with Harry and Nancy. What can go wrong?
What could go wrong is that the U.S. military's "surge" could go right. The surge, led by Gen. David Petraeus and formally known as the Baghdad Security Plan, is a real strategy being executed by real people on the ground in Iraq. For the past several months, since President Bush announced the plan, the Democratic leadership has acted as if this effort were so irrelevant as to not exist. Why bother? The House leadership has its own "surge" up and running in Washington against the enemy in the White House.
The Democrats' D.C. surge began in February when Rep. John Murtha announced plans to shut off the war. What followed was a six-week push by the Pelosi team toward a March vote on a date-certain pullout. Across those weeks, this domestic offensive has been the big story in our politics. Add in as well the theater of operations opened by Democratic Lt. Gen. Chuck Schumer's siege of the Justice Department.
This is heady stuff, rolling a president off the field, so heady the Democrats may be allowing their compulsions to make them the one force thwarting a much longed-for military success in Iraq. This in turn could leave the Democratic Party on the wrong side of the most revered institution in American life--the U.S. military. That is, back where they were when Bill Clinton was president. The "we support the troops" mantra will ring hollow if the Democrats are pulling out Army and Marine personnel just as they're gaining on the killers of their comrades.
The timelines for the Iraq surge announced on Jan. 10 and the Democrats' surge to shut it down have run in tandem.
On Jan. 23 Gen. Petraeus offered the Senate Armed Services Committee an outline of the surge. By Feb. 8, U.S. paratroopers and engineers in Baghdad had quickly put together 10 Joint Security Stations, the new command centers to be operated with Iraq's security forces. (The material for the surge timeline here comes from the excellent "Iraq Report" compiled by Kimberly Kagan, director of the Institute for the Study of War and published biweekly on the Web site of the Weekly Standard.)
On Feb. 10, Gen. Petraeus arrived to take command of these forces in Baghdad. In the second week of February, U.S. troops conducted 20,000 patrols compared to 7,400 the week before.
On Feb. 16, the House of Representatives passed a resolution, 246-182, to oppose the mission. Nancy Pelosi: "The stakes in Iraq are too high to recycle proposals that have little prospect for success." That might not be true. It might indeed succeed.
Through February and into March, the U.S.-Iraqi forces moved into neighborhoods on the edge of Sadr City, stronghold of Shiite militias. "While the house-to-house operations continued," Ms. Kagan writes, "U.S. and Iraqi forces also interdicted the flow of fighters and supplies through those neighborhoods into Sadr City."
Meanwhile, House Democrats worked on a bill to force the withdrawal of U.S. troops by fall 2008.
On March 4, 600 U.S. and 550 Iraqi forces commenced house-to-house searches in Sadr City's Jamil neighborhood. Also in early March, with little fanfare, U.S. and Iraqi forces arrested 16 individuals connected with the Jaysh al-Mahdi cell, suspected of sectarian kidnappings and killings.
On March 23, the House voted 218-212 to remove these U.S. forces by August's end, 2008.
It's not quite three months since the surge began in Iraq, and some early assessments of the operation have emerged. They are positive. Keep in mind that this strategy emerged from military reassessment over the past year, led largely by Gen. Petraeus; this isn't a pick-up team.
Testifying last Wednesday to a House Armed Services subcommittee, military historian Fred Kagan, who has criticized administration policies, noted that the Iraqi army is "now larger than the standing armies of France and Great Britain." The nine Iraqi army battalions called for in the surge have arrived, at over 90% of programmed strength. "They are taking casualties, inflicting casualties on the enemy and helping to maintain and establish peace for the people of Baghdad," said Mr. Kagan.
A report filed last week by retired Army Gen. Barry McCaffrey gets the political-military dynamic just right. He notes that we are "in a position of strategic peril there. But he then describes in detail how since early February the situation on the ground has "measurably improved." Thus the conclusion: "We now need a last powerful effort to provide to U.S. leaders on the ground the political support . . . and military strength it requires to succeed."
Gen. Petraeus himself in recent interviews has been careful not to oversell this early success. But it is difficult to imagine that the American public would want to hang its military with a failure if a better outcome is in reach. Failed wars exact a price. During Vietnam, between 1966 and 1973 support for the U.S. military dropped from 62% to 32%. We're not there, yet. From 2002 till now polls have found a combined favorable view toward the military of around 85%. But withdrawing these American troops on the cusp of a reasonable success could do long-term damage.
No one can simply assume that we would avoid a decline in faith in the army as an effective American institution deserving financial support, as happened with the post-Vietnam defense cuts. As bad, it could force a failed military class--officers to grunts--to rebuild, again, the ethos and esprit necessary to defend us from the next threat. That takes time. We don't have time.
If the Iraq surge is succeeding, the Democrats' surge should stand down. If a year from now the Petraeus plan is foundering, the Democrats will have plenty of time to hang it around the GOP's neck by demanding a legitimate withdrawal date--November 2008. But not now.
Daniel Henninger is deputy editor of The Wall Street Journal's editorial page.
http://www.realclearpolitics.com/articles/2007/04/will_dems_thwart_success_in_ir.html
- Feb 12, 2007
- 59,384
- 24,019
- 2,290
I own a bicylcle and a motorcycle. I also walk alot.
How about You?
I take public transportation to work, walk a great deal, own a car for which I use less than one tank of gas per month, and have two bicycles. The difference between you and me is that I don't expect other people to live Exactly The Same Way I Do. I also recognize that many of the goods and services upon which I depend are serviced by the oil industry. (i.e., I doubt you grow your own produce in your backyard.)
The hyperventiliating sanctimony regarding the War being about Oil reminds me of Ghandi advocating subsistence farming as a lifestyle. The effect of an abrupt and severe oil shortage would be most devastating on those who are least able to afford it - and would cause severe hardship (in the worst cases, starvation).
Ghandi's subsistence farming vision would have likewise caused severe starvation. They are similar in that abrupt solutions usually take the form of undoing advancements and developments in the technologies that make human life more liveable. Our best alternative is the development of alternative, domestically available forms of energy without trashing our economy in the transition process.
red states rule
Senior Member
- May 30, 2006
- 16,011
- 573
- 48
I take public transportation to work, walk a great deal, own a car for which I use less than one tank of gas per month, and have two bicycles. The difference between you and me is that I don't expect other people to live Exactly The Same Way I Do. I also recognize that many of the goods and services upon which I depend are serviced by the oil industry. (i.e., I doubt you grow your own produce in your backyard.)
The hyperventiliating sanctimony regarding the War being about Oil reminds me of Ghandi advocating subsistence farming as a lifestyle. The effect of an abrupt and severe oil shortage would be most devastating on those who are least able to afford it - and would cause severe hardship (in the worst cases, starvation).
Ghandi's subsistence farming vision would have likewise caused severe starvation. They are similar in that abrupt solutions usually take the form of undoing advancements and developments in the technologies that make human life more liveable. Our best alternative is the development of alternative, domestically available forms of energy without trashing our economy in the transition process.
Lets all conserve energy like Al Gore
the war on terrorism is not comparable to the cold war.
Actsnoblemartin: Absolutely EXCELLENT anaology. Your are 1000% right, having a war on drugs, or poverty is kind of like having a war on cancer, how do you kill the cancer without killing the patient, im not saying give up, im just saying your analysis is brilliant sir. Its very difficult.
Ah...yooohooo. Ex-cancer patient here. Doctor's declared war on my cancer. Killed it. Still here, thank you much. Bad analogy. Unless you're being sarcastic.
LuvRPgrl
Senior Member
- Aug 11, 2005
- 3,163
- 206
- 48
He was responsible for a lot of killing while in power. The difference now is that payback is happening. If Sunnis kill Shiites, then Shiities in return kill Sunnis. That's not America's fault. It comes from decades of that tyrant doing as he pleased.
BUt hey, the logic behind the lame brain libs is that its ok to keep a genocidal maniacal tyrant in, as long as it keeps opposing groups from battling each other. Well, they have to maintain that logic to push their HATRED FOR PRESIDENT BUSH agenda.
LuvRPgrl
Senior Member
- Aug 11, 2005
- 3,163
- 206
- 48
what makes you think the cold war ended ?
Global warming.
LuvRPgrl
Senior Member
- Aug 11, 2005
- 3,163
- 206
- 48
This 8:28 video lays it out in an easy to follow time line.
http://video.google.com/videoplay?d...+Terror:+The+Greatest+Hoax+Of+All+Time?&hl=en
It is time for all of us to take a stand against the fraud. The elite New World Order Globalists are using our military for their personal gain.
Well, you finally convinced me. That last pic of Bush hugging that guy proves its just for oil. I will no longer support the Republicans and Bush in this war. I was wrong all along.
And since they are trying to kill off all the muslims, I think that is wrong too. Imagine that, those bastards actually trying to kill every muslim, women and children too.
And the big oil companies are just a bunch of greedy bastards, never mind they create thousands of jobs,
You libs are sooooo looney its funny. I just cant take you serious anymore.
CTRLALTDEL
Member
BUt hey, the logic behind the lame brain libs is that its ok to keep a genocidal maniacal tyrant in, as long as it keeps opposing groups from battling each other. Well, they have to maintain that logic to push their HATRED FOR PRESIDENT BUSH agenda.
Hey birdbrain, your REPUBLICAN GOVT has SUPPORTED TYRANTS before (AS LONG AS HE/SHE WAS OUR FRIEND).
red states rule
Senior Member
- May 30, 2006
- 16,011
- 573
- 48
Hey birdbrain, your REPUBLICAN GOVT has SUPPORTED TYRANTS before (AS LONG AS HE/SHE WAS OUR FRIEND).
only when it was in the best interest of the US (like US supporting Stalin in WWII)
Libs cuddle up to them because they do not have the guts to fight them. Like Pelosi on her "Hug A Dictator Tour"
LuvRPgrl
Senior Member
- Aug 11, 2005
- 3,163
- 206
- 48
Hey birdbrain, your REPUBLICAN GOVT has SUPPORTED TYRANTS before (AS LONG AS HE/SHE WAS OUR FRIEND).
Your point???
Other than, YOU criticize Bush for supporter a tyrant, and then you argue it was better for the Iraqis under a tyrant than the democracy they have now.
Similar threads
- Replies
- 18
- Views
- 164
- Replies
- 11
- Views
- 626
- Replies
- 154
- Views
- 7K
Latest Discussions
- Replies
- 84
- Views
- 627
- Replies
- 149
- Views
- 708
- Replies
- 701
- Views
- 5K
Forum List
-
-
-
-
-
Political Satire 8081
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
ObamaCare 781
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
Member Usernotes 471
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-