I Laugh About The Lib Media Moaning About Colin Powell's Death

I was a Marine and General Powell turned on the republicans he is not well received by them now because of that, it has nothing to do with his position color of skin or any of that, he TURNED on republicans after they went to bat for him, supported him and encouraged him.

I wasn't addressing you. I was addressing that hippie Pknoff.

General Powell got to where he was through talent and ability, not because Republicans did anything for him. If anything, he helped the Republicans by giving them gravitas on military and foreign affairs.
 
I also never helped lie the country into war either. Invading Iraq protected none of our freedoms. It did the opposite. Those same liars enacted things like the "Patriot Act".

YOu mean they gave us exactly what we wanted, and we hated them for it... Come on, get real, when the Iraq War started, it had 80% approval.

Powell was at least a big enough man to apologize for it. Now saying "I didn't know it was a lie" is still a bit of a cop out.

Except it wasn't a "lie". Saddam wanted the world to THINK he had WMD's to scare his own people and his neighbors. It's kind of like the guy who goes into a liquor store and waves around a toy gun... he's got no one to blame but himself when the cops shoot him.

The war criminal Powell had no integrity.

It's fun to watch the Wingnuts act like a hippy drum circle.
 
YOu mean they gave us exactly what we wanted, and we hated them for it... Come on, get real, when the Iraq War started, it had 80% approval.



Except it wasn't a "lie". Saddam wanted the world to THINK he had WMD's to scare his own people and his neighbors. It's kind of like the guy who goes into a liquor store and waves around a toy gun... he's got no one to blame but himself when the cops shoot him.



It's fun to watch the Wingnuts act like a hippy drum circle.

The country wanted to go into Afghanistan. We had to be lied into Iraq. Yes it was a lie.
 
Only because of Morons like you claiming it was a lie when it was just bad intel.

We were all over the country before invading but found nothing. All the same, you are arguing our intelligence can not be trusted.
 
  • Thanks
Reactions: cnm
Sadly what we did in Iraq has made many doubt the word of our leaders.


I doubt that. I think most people's minds were made up long ago, and had more to do with whether they hate US, or not.


Hell, the lefties of Europe and America? Their minds were made up by their teachers and by the propaganda in their media and entertainment, long before they were old enough to pay attention to teh news.
 
We were all over the country before invading but found nothing. All the same, you are arguing our intelligence can not be trusted.
Look you fucking RETARD Saddam Hussein LIED to his own people and the world about having them. His OWN Generals thought he had them. We got bad intel because Saddam wanted everyone to believe he had them as a deterrent.
 
I doubt that. I think most people's minds were made up long ago, and had more to do with whether they hate US, or not.


Hell, the lefties of Europe and America? Their minds were made up by their teachers and by the propaganda in their media and entertainment, long before they were old enough to pay attention to teh news.

People shouldn't be upset over invading a country and killing thousands over "bad intelligence"?
 
  • Thanks
Reactions: cnm
Look you fucking RETARD Saddam Hussein LIED to his own people and the world about having them. His OWN Generals thought he had them. We got bad intel because Saddam wanted everyone to believe he had them as a deterrent.

North Korea continues to say all kinds of stupid things...........Even if he had them he did nothing to us.
 
People shouldn't be upset over invading a country and killing thousands over "bad intelligence"?


Sure. But, what they should NOT do, is exaggerate that mistake to be something it was not, or to mean something it does not.


I've talked to libs that use the invasion to make teh argument that this means that White Evangelicals are "bloodthirsty".


That was fucking retarded and bigoted. And is not far from the norm of "mainstream" liberalism.
 
Sure. But, what they should NOT do, is exaggerate that mistake to be something it was not, or to mean something it does not.


I've talked to libs that use the invasion to make teh argument that this means that White Evangelicals are "bloodthirsty".


That was fucking retarded and bigoted. And is not far from the norm of "mainstream" liberalism.

I believe the label bloodthirsty describes people like Cheney and Rumsfeld to a T but I would not consider either "Evangelical".
 
I believe the label bloodthirsty describes people like Cheney and Rumsfeld to a T but I would not consider either "Evangelical".


And that is why, we cannot learn anything from the Iraq War, because people like you take any discussion of it, into La La Land.


The end result is that the next time we have a possible war scenario, we will be starting from THE SAME PLACE we did, back in 2003.


Your actions are making war MORE LIKELY.



Me? With the end of the Cold War, I support a return to the traditional position of disentanglement for America. I would like a real discussion about our National Security policies and positions.


Instead, we get CLown World.
 
And that is why, we cannot learn anything from the Iraq War, because people like you take any discussion of it, into La La Land.


The end result is that the next time we have a possible war scenario, we will be starting from THE SAME PLACE we did, back in 2003.


Your actions are making war MORE LIKELY.



Me? With the end of the Cold War, I support a return to the traditional position of disentanglement for America. I would like a real discussion about our National Security policies and positions.


Instead, we get CLown World.

Cheney and Rumsfeld are the furthest away you can get from what you pretend you want but still you feel this need to defend them which makes me question anything you say as being truthful.
 
Cheney and Rumsfeld are the furthest away you can get from what you pretend you want but still you feel this need to defend them which makes me question anything you say as being truthful.
Again you have not apologized for claiming it was a lie. Nor have you returned my favor after you disagreed with my post pointing it out.
 
Cheney and Rumsfeld are the furthest away you can get from what you pretend you want but still you feel this need to defend them which makes me question anything you say as being truthful.

That makes no sense.

1. I want a less interventionist foreign policy.

2. I see no reason to think Cheney and Rumsfeld are "bloodthirsty".


There is no conflict between those two points. There is nothing there for you to find reason to doubt my truthfulness.


Your position seems to imply that YOU believe that if you disagree with someone, you have to support all attacks on them, whether you agree with them or not.


Which is a very ugly way to think. And is insanely divisive.
 
That makes no sense.

1. I want a less interventionist foreign policy.

2. I see no reason to think Cheney and Rumsfeld are "bloodthirsty".


There is no conflict between those two points. There is nothing there for you to find reason to doubt my truthfulness.


Your position seems to imply that YOU believe that if you disagree with someone, you have to support all attacks on them, whether you agree with them or not.


Which is a very ugly way to think. And is insanely divisive.

So you agree with them despite saying otherwise.
 

Forum List

Back
Top