Bush and Officials Lied leading up to Iraq war

[maineman]

"They don't care nor believe you, anyone that does not spit on Bush and call him a liar and a crook and claim everything he ever did is bad, well then those people love Bush."

thus sayeth the king of flatulent, over the top hyperbolic rhetoric!

 

[maineman]

Hey...RGS.... tell me again what the "E" stands for in the acronym "NIE"?

 

[maineman]

NATO==US. The US funds over 70% of NATO and provides almost 90% of its combat power

Does that apply to the UN as well?

 

[maineman]

Post 425....MAINEMEN SAYS
NATO went into the former Yugoslavia because there WAS a threat to the European continent.

Your claim...so I ask you....
the threat must have been dire to start bombing their troops, their bridges and their citizens....I'll wait....

Then you can address my hypothetical....

Would the United States view a full fledged, bloody civil conflict raging in Mexico, complete with ethnic cleansing to be a threat to American security?

 

[DeadCanDance]

You are aware 20k troops are STILL there, with aircraft ships and all the support that goes with those missions? Still deployed in a place we were told would be a short mission that NATO would take over.

Are you ready to retract your lie about 20,000 american soldiers STILL stationed in the balkans?

The US has about 4,000 troops in the Balkans

4,000 in 2003. There might be less now.

In addition, Clinton didn't trap them in the midst of a civil war, or blunder us into an insurgency. Compared to amateur hour in the Bush Adminstration, Clinton looks like a titan of skillful diplomacy and execution.

 

[Alpha1]

Yes, I object to the cost in blood and treasure.

If Clinton had squandered a trillion dollars in the balkans, and gotten tens of thousands of american servicemen and women killed and wounded, I'd be among the first to say we should get out of there, and tell the serbs and bosinans to go **** themselves.

Fortunately, Clinton was more skillful and competent than the moron you voted for twice. A moron who has created disasters in two countries: afganistan and iraq.

I'll bet Clinton would have made a wonderful wartime General...with all that skill and competence....right DCD?

Well thats quite candid...3949 or so US Troops dead.....thats alot of men.......The military toll for WWII was about 25 million.....No one attacked us but we had to stick our nose in that one too, until Japan finally attacked us....

25 million.....
that must really be objectionable to you....over 6000 times more dead....I guess we could have told 15 or 20 countries in Europe to go **** themselves back then too....we could have saved alot of money and lives....
yessirreee.....

 

[DeadCanDance]

Are you ready to retract your lie about 20,000 american soldiers STILL stationed in the balkans?



4,000 in 2003. There might be less now.

In addition, Clinton didn't trap them in the midst of a civil war, or blunder us into an insurgency. Compared to amateur hour in the Bush Adminstration, Clinton looks like a titan of skillful diplomacy and execution.

I'm almost ready to conclude that someone who claims to have had a glorious military career, and is supposedly tuned in and in touch with what's going on in the military, is naught more than an internet poseur.

Anyone who kept abreast of the US Military and was involved with it, knew that TODAY there ISN'T a massive america commitment of 20,000 soldiers to the balkans stabiization force. That in fact, SFOR is mostly a European Union operation now.

 

[DeadCanDance]

Would the United States view a full fledged, bloody civil conflict raging in Mexico, complete with ethnic cleansing to be a threat to American security?

LOL

Yes

 

[maineman]

I'll bet Clinton would have made a wonderful wartime General...with all that skill and competence....right DCD?

Well thats quite candid...3949 or so US Troops dead.....thats alot of men.......The military toll for WWII was about 25 million.....No one attacked us but we had to stick our nose in that one too, until Japan finally attacked us....

25 million.....
that must really be objectionable to you....over 6000 times more dead....I guess we could have told 15 or 20 countries in Europe to go **** themselves back then too....we could have saved alot of money and lives....
yessirreee.....

are you suggesting we lost 25M americans in WWII?

and how exactly, beyond lend lease, did we stick our noses into WWII prior to 12/7/41?

 

[Alpha1]

Would the United States view a full fledged, bloody civil conflict raging in Mexico, complete with ethnic cleansing to be a threat to American security?

Personally, I wouldn't...but others might for think of some kind of threat....
like our lettuce crop might not get picked or something....not a good reason to start bombing Cancun though....

So ,are you trying to answer a question with a question?

What threat was there to the European continent?

Were they afraid the fighting would spread to Norway or France or Germany...?

 

[maineman]

Personally, I wouldn't...but others might for think of some kind of threat....
like our lettuce crop might not get picked or something....not a good reason to start bombing Cancun though....

So ,are you trying to answer a question with a question?

What threat was there to the European continent?

Were they afraid the fighting would spread to Norway or France or Germany...?

Europe viewed an escalating, spreading ethnic based bloody conflict on their southern flank as a threat to their security. That's a fact.

Iraq offered no such threat to OUR security....according to Powell, not even a threat to the security of his immediate neighbors.

 

[Zoomie1980]

I'm almost ready to conclude that someone who claims to have had a glorious military career, and is supposedly tuned in and in touch with what's going on in the military, is naught more than an internet poseur.

Anyone who kept abreast of the US Military and was involved with it, knew that TODAY there ISN'T a massive america commitment of 20,000 soldiers to the balkans stabiization force. That in fact, SFOR is mostly a European Union operation now.

We have about 4500 combat troops and about 16,000 support personnel in the Balkans. Of the 160,000 surge troops in Iraq only about 50,000 are actual combat soldiers, the rest are support troops. That's the normal 3.5-4.0 per 1 ratio we have maintained for decades.

 

[DeadCanDance]

I'll bet Clinton would have made a wonderful wartime General...with all that skill and competence....right DCD?

Well thats quite candid...3949 or so US Troops dead.....thats alot of men.......The military toll for WWII was about 25 million.....No one attacked us but we had to stick our nose in that one too, until Japan finally attacked us....

25 million.....
that must really be objectionable to you....over 6000 times more dead....I guess we could have told 15 or 20 countries in Europe to go **** themselves back then too....we could have saved alot of money and lives....
yessirreee.....

Your head is so far up bush's ass, the lack of oxygen to your brain is making you think up ridiculous arguments.

Yeah, we shouldn't have fought two nations that declared war on us, and attacked us: Japan at pearl harbor, and Germany's declaration of war on us, and sending their U-boat fleet into the gulf of mexico and atlantic seaboard to attack our naval and merchant shipping.

 

[Alpha1]

are you suggesting we lost 25M americans in WWII?

and how exactly, beyond lend lease, did we stick our noses into WWII prior to 12/7/41?

.....Lend lease was quite enough to earn the wrath of the Axis....but running supply ships, our pilots fighting for the RAF, valuable intell for the Brits, etc....the list could be fairly long.....but its not really relevant is it..?


If I meant that ... I would state it clearly.....
That figure includes about 50+ countries that lost troops in the war...
The US only lost about 400K....
The point is not the number ...the point is that DCD finds the cost of the Iraq too high......if it were lower or no cost at all, he might have no objection to the war....he values money and lives over principal and justice....at least hes honest....

 

[Zoomie1980]

Does that apply to the UN as well?

We fund over HALF the UN Budget. There are what, 200+ UN Members and we fund half of it? We don't commit any troops to that worthless, corrupt, useless entity. I would as soon withdraw and kick them out of NY.

 

[DeadCanDance]

We have about 4500 combat troops and about 16,000 support personnel in the Balkans. Of the 160,000 surge troops in Iraq only about 50,000 are actual combat soldiers, the rest are support troops. That's the normal 3.5-4.0 per 1 ratio we have maintained for decades.

LOL

Yeah, I'm so sure RSG was counting Halliburton and Burger King personel, and dish washing contractors in the balkans who feed and supply our troops, as part of our 20,000 military committment in the balkans.

 

[maineman]

We fund over HALF the UN Budget. There are what, 200+ UN Members and we fund half of it? We don't commit any troops to that worthless, corrupt, useless entity. I would as soon withdraw and kick them out of NY.

so...if, like NATO, our pocketbook makes them synonymous with us and our policies and initiatives, why couldn't Bush get a UN resolution authorizing his silly war in Iraq?

I suggest that NATO - and the UN - are more independent than you give them credit for.

 

[shepherdboy]

Yes, I object to the cost in blood and treasure.

If Clinton had squandered a trillion dollars in the balkans, and gotten tens of thousands of american servicemen and women killed and wounded, I'd be among the first to say we should get out of there, and tell the serbs and bosinans to go **** themselves.

Fortunately, Clinton was more skillful and competent than the moron you voted for twice. A moron who has created disasters in two countries: afganistan and iraq.

You won't be saying that when peak oil goes critical and its the strategic tactical advantage the U.S. has over all the other oil suiters that saves our economy while the rest of the world goes oil starved. Face the fact : If other countries had the military resources and savvy to do what the U.S. does they would. Don't fool yourself with that belief that we can all work together in peace. For you atheist out there its your Darwin's survival of the fittest.

 

[RetiredGySgt]

We have about 4500 combat troops and about 16,000 support personnel in the Balkans. Of the 160,000 surge troops in Iraq only about 50,000 are actual combat soldiers, the rest are support troops. That's the normal 3.5-4.0 per 1 ratio we have maintained for decades.

20k like I said. But retard DCD is to stupid to understand.

 

[Zoomie1980]

You won't be saying that when peak oil goes critical and its the strategic tactical advantage the U.S. has over all the other oil suiters that saves our economy while the rest of the world goes oil starved. Face the fact : If other countries had the military resources and savvy to do what the U.S. does they would. Don't fool yourself with that belief that we can all work together in peace. For you atheist out there its your Darwin's survival of the fittest.

The world hasn't changed much at all in 5000+ years of recorded human history. It is still Darwanism that rules human behavior. Those who cannot keep what what they have; have no right to it. Those that can take what what they need have EVERY right to it and if the rest don't like it, they can try to do something about it....which, in most cases, the can't. And the rest of the world should bow and pray that it is the United States of America who rules the world today and not the Soviet Union.