A question for neocons on this board

[Si modo]

No, what you are doing is being an apologist for Bush. Bush invaded Iraq for stupid reasons. Clinton didn't. HW didn't. Bush did. The blame is his but obviously you don't subscribe to the personal responsibility theory, therefore you must look past Bush and excuse his stupidity by assigning culpability where it doesn't exist.

Where have I apologized for Bush? Where did I say Clinton invaded Iraq? Where did I say GHWB invaded Iraq? Where did I assign full culpability to Clinton? Are you hallucinating again?

That's not what I said. I see I struck a nerve.

I must assume you are hallucinating. You can't answer in the affirmative for any of the strawmen you brought up.

But, to once again address the paranoid here - God forbid anyone point out Clinton errors, too - several administrations have messed with restrictions and controls on the IC, including Clinton.

 

[Si modo]

GWB sent the troops in, not his father and not Clinton. This salient fact undermines all of si modo's dithering on the subject. He can't defend his position at all.

I don't defend positions others make up for me.

 

[Si modo]

Wow. I see Dude an I blaming several administrations and paranoid hacks thinking the blame is being assigned to one. Reading is fundamental.

No, what you are doing is being an apologist for Bush. Bush invaded Iraq for stupid reasons. Clinton didn't. HW didn't. Bush did. The blame is his but obviously you don't subscribe to the personal responsibility theory, therefore you must look past Bush and excuse his stupidity by assigning culpability where it doesn't exist.

Yeah pretty clear to me that Ravi got it right on this one. Many may or may not have peripherally contributed - one administration turned the machine on high and sent the troops.

Each should accept responsibility for their own individual failures - but trying to call it all even-steven is certainly not merited by the evidence imho - reading comprehension insults aside.

Then read my posts and let us all know where I even mentioned Bush until just recently because some paranoid hacks think I blame Clinton for invading Iraq? How bizarre! I mentioned Clinton w.r.t. restrictions on the IC. Read what I write, not what you think I write.

 

[Oddball]

No, what you are doing is being an apologist for Bush. Bush invaded Iraq for stupid reasons. Clinton didn't. HW didn't. Bush did. The blame is his but obviously you don't subscribe to the personal responsibility theory, therefore you must look past Bush and excuse his stupidity by assigning culpability where it doesn't exist.

Bubba kept in place the economic sanctions and unilaterally imposed no fly zones over the airspace of another sovereign nation (Iraq) that BushI started. Those are defacto acts of war, you partisan hack-in-the-box lamebrain.

and...and...and...it worked, it kept Saddam powerless. And Clinton, again for the stupid, did not invade Iraq. That was George W. Bush.

You really need to lay off the brown acid.

 

[nodoginnafight]

No, what you are doing is being an apologist for Bush. Bush invaded Iraq for stupid reasons. Clinton didn't. HW didn't. Bush did. The blame is his but obviously you don't subscribe to the personal responsibility theory, therefore you must look past Bush and excuse his stupidity by assigning culpability where it doesn't exist.

Yeah pretty clear to me that Ravi got it right on this one. Many may or may not have peripherally contributed - one administration turned the machine on high and sent the troops.

Each should accept responsibility for their own individual failures - but trying to call it all even-steven is certainly not merited by the evidence imho - reading comprehension insults aside.

Then read my posts and let us all know where I even mentioned Bush until just recently because some paranoid hacks think I blame Clinton for invading Iraq? How bizarre! I mentioned Clinton w.r.t. restrictions on the IC. Read what I write, not what you think I write.

You are absolutely correct in that my initial post was in response to Dude's post (nothing that you had posted at all) then you quoted my post with something about you and dude, and just contuinued on with the pairing in subsequent posts.
My bad.

 

[Oddball]

For all of those who can bother themselves with issues of chronology of events (for Ravi, that means what came first and what happened later):

Letter from PNAC to the White House, dated 26 Jan 98:

Letter to President Clinton on Iraq

Clinton's statement on Iraq policy, dated 17 Feb 98:

Text Of Clinton Statement On Iraq - February 17, 1998

Now, after reading for comprehension and digesting those two in juxtaposition, you don't think it's possible that, just maybe..... possibly.....probably.......?

NAAAAWWWWW!!!!

 

[Ravi]

Oh my, you're one of those One World Order nuts.

 

[Oddball]

You sure your I.Q. is as much as in double digits?

 

[Ravi]

You sure your I.Q. is as much as in double digits?

It's 84...and it still manages to make you look like a moron across all threads.

You fail to understand the concept of bluffing the enemy into submission, much like your hero Dubya.

No matter. If it isn't Clinton's fault it is Obama's fault...we all get your point. Bush isn't responsible for anything because everything can be blamed on others.

 

[AllieBaba]

Wow. I see Dude an I blaming several administrations and paranoid hacks thinking the blame is being assigned to one. Reading is fundamental.

No, what you are doing is being an apologist for Bush. Bush invaded Iraq for stupid reasons. Clinton didn't. HW didn't. Bush did. The blame is his but obviously you don't subscribe to the personal responsibility theory, therefore you must look past Bush and excuse his stupidity by assigning culpability where it doesn't exist.

Yeah pretty clear to me that Ravi got it right on this one. Many may or may not have peripherally contributed - one administration turned the machine on high and sent the troops.

Each should accept responsibility for their own individual failures - but trying to call it all even-steven is certainly not merited by the evidence imho - reading comprehension insults aside.

You must be talking about a different Ravi. Because the Ravi on this board has never gotten anything right. Not once.

 

[California Girl]

You sure your I.Q. is as much as in double digits?

It's 84...and it still manages to make you look like a moron across all threads.

You fail to understand the concept of bluffing the enemy into submission, much like your hero Dubya.

No matter. If it isn't Clinton's fault it is Obama's fault...we all get your point. Bush isn't responsible for anything because everything can be blamed on others.

That explains a lot!

 

[Oddball]

You sure your I.Q. is as much as in double digits?

It's 84...and it still manages to make you look like a moron across all threads.

The low end for low average.....Like we all hadn't figured that out by now. IQ Test Scores: The Basics of IQ Score Interpretation

Best quit acting like you're too-smart-by-half, half wit.

 

[Ravi]

You sure your I.Q. is as much as in double digits?

It's 84...and it still manages to make you look like a moron across all threads.

The low end for low average.....Like we all hadn't figured that out by now. IQ Test Scores: The Basics of IQ Score Interpretation

Best quit acting like you're too-smart-by-half, half wit.

It was 76 just last May...talking to you retards seems to improve it every time I take the test.

 

[Oddball]

So, by your own admission, you're an idiot.

Something else most people had already figured out.

 

[Si modo]

Ah, the thread has entered raviland where it's an acid trip through garbage. One of the scarier rides at USMB.

 

[Ravi]

So, by your own admission, you're an idiot.

Something else most people had already figured out.

Yep...the point being my IQ has nothing to do with your being wrong.

But it's no big deal, when people like you are shown to be wrong you simply go on the attack.

It's rather boring.

 

[CurveLight]

No, what you are doing is being an apologist for Bush. Bush invaded Iraq for stupid reasons. Clinton didn't. HW didn't. Bush did. The blame is his but obviously you don't subscribe to the personal responsibility theory, therefore you must look past Bush and excuse his stupidity by assigning culpability where it doesn't exist.

Bubba kept in place the economic sanctions and unilaterally imposed no fly zones over the airspace of another sovereign nation (Iraq) that BushI started. Those are defacto acts of war, you partisan hack-in-the-box lamebrain.

True, he kept those policies in place but since they were the fallout from the end of Desert Storm it's kinda hard to say they were "de facto acts of war."

The no-fly zones were not UN Sanctioned and were put in place by the US (anyone surprised?), Britain, and France. The "Humanitarian Crisis" was the bullshit reason given but the real damage was done by the US driven UN Sanctions.

 

[CurveLight]

Otay......I'm really not happy about going through the last several posts. When people delve strictly into romper room rectum reamers is there any way to tag the posts so others can skip right over them?

 

[Oddball]

No, what you are doing is being an apologist for Bush. Bush invaded Iraq for stupid reasons. Clinton didn't. HW didn't. Bush did. The blame is his but obviously you don't subscribe to the personal responsibility theory, therefore you must look past Bush and excuse his stupidity by assigning culpability where it doesn't exist.

Bubba kept in place the economic sanctions and unilaterally imposed no fly zones over the airspace of another sovereign nation (Iraq) that BushI started. Those are defacto acts of war, you partisan hack-in-the-box lamebrain.

True, he kept those policies in place but since they were the fallout from the end of Desert Storm it's kinda hard to say they were "de facto acts of war."

The no-fly zones were not UN Sanctioned and were put in place by the US (anyone surprised?), Britain, and France. The "Humanitarian Crisis" was the bullshit reason given but the real damage was done by the US driven UN Sanctions.

Flying your war planes over another sovereign nation's airspace, by unilateral fiat, and attacking their SAM sights if they have the temerity to turn on their tracking radar isn't an act of war?

Lobbing cruise missiles at that nation's capital when you need to get your zipper out of the news isn't an act of war?

Since when?

 

[Annie]

No, what you are doing is being an apologist for Bush. Bush invaded Iraq for stupid reasons. Clinton didn't. HW didn't. Bush did. The blame is his but obviously you don't subscribe to the personal responsibility theory, therefore you must look past Bush and excuse his stupidity by assigning culpability where it doesn't exist.

Bubba kept in place the economic sanctions and unilaterally imposed no fly zones over the airspace of another sovereign nation (Iraq) that BushI started. Those are defacto acts of war, you partisan hack-in-the-box lamebrain.

True, he kept those policies in place but since they were the fallout from the end of Desert Storm it's kinda hard to say they were "de facto acts of war."

The no-fly zones were not UN Sanctioned and were put in place by the US (anyone surprised?), Britain, and France. The "Humanitarian Crisis" was the bullshit reason given but the real damage was done by the US driven UN Sanctions.

actually the only ones claiming that the 'no fly zones' were illegal were Iraqi delegates to UN.