Question: why do liberals always say Bush started TWO unwarranted wars?

[NYcarbineer]

All this will be moot won't it, after the Tea Party gets Rand Paul elected in 2016 and he pulls all our troops out of the Middle East...

Or Obama tries a coup to stay in office - don't think it can happen here ? ...perhaps.

I'm glad you're here to show people what real modern conservatism looks like.

 

[J.E.D]

​

Or Obama tries a coup to stay in office - don't think it can happen here ? ...perhaps.

You. Are. A. Moron.

Is that the best you got ?

Call me when you have something of substance - actually don't call me - I'll Call You .

That's all you're worth. Suggesting Obama may try to stay in office beyond his constitutionally mandated tenure is the stuff of idiots. Urine idiot.

 

[KNB]

There was never going to be a military victory in Afghanistan. The CIA adopted guerrilla tactics from the Viet Cong and trained the Afghan Mujaheddin how to wear down a world superpower over a long period of time.

Afghanistan: Lessons from the Last War
The CIA's Vietnam Histories

They never learn to stop meddling, which usually gives rise to violent extremists.
CIA Confirms Role in 1953 Iran Coup

The Taliban File

 

[tinydancer]

Then deny they are truthers? Real simple questions really. I mean how many times do we see them blame Bush for starting TWO wars?

The "revisionists" are really pushing that new history they've come up with. I find anyone saying that the Afghanistan war was unnecessary is dishonest beyond belief.

Why was it necessary?

What other options did we consider outside of nation building and pulling ourselves into a 13 year war?

The war was fine. The nation building sucked. That's where we screwed up.

Now I have no problem admitting that we were nuts to stay and try to drag Afghanis out of the stone age.

And this is a hard pill for me to swallow. I've been pro women's rights in Afghanistan for almost 20 years now. They've made real progress but you can see where it could flip back to the stone age again very easily.

So I do wonder at the end of the day was our childrens' blood for Afghanistan's freedom worth it?

I truly struggle with this.

 

[BlindBoo]

Yup- Like FDR started WWII - shoulda just turned the other cheek - right ? Damn that FDR for getting all those boys killed fighting Japan and Germany.

We had no business invading those countries - it was none of our business - he just did because the capitalists wanted their resources !!!!

Absolutely no comparison.

WWII was the last time we fought a "legitimate" war.

And you don't see paralells between 9-11 and 12-7

Very few.

7 and 11 rhyme?

Is that what you mean?

 

[billyerock1991]

Then deny they are truthers? Real simple questions really. I mean how many times do we see them blame Bush for starting TWO wars?

if you need to be told why that says how stupid you really are...

 

[rightwinger]

The "revisionists" are really pushing that new history they've come up with. I find anyone saying that the Afghanistan war was unnecessary is dishonest beyond belief.

Why was it necessary?

What other options did we consider outside of nation building and pulling ourselves into a 13 year war?

The war was fine. The nation building sucked. That's where we screwed up.

Now I have no problem admitting that we were nuts to stay and try to drag Afghanis out of the stone age.

And this is a hard pill for me to swallow. I've been pro women's rights in Afghanistan for almost 20 years now. They've made real progress but you can see where it could flip back to the stone age again very easily.

So I do wonder at the end of the day was our childrens' blood for Afghanistan's freedom.

I truly struggle with this.

I agree

I was all gung ho about Afgahanistan at the beginning. But after 13 years I ask....was it worth it?

 

[BlindBoo]

This thread is a trick question for liberal idiots...

1) They can't tie the war in Afghanistan to Bin Laden because many of them believe the CIA and "Jews" attacked us on 9-11.

2) They can't think very long into the past so they have no clue the entire chain of events with Iraq started when "Saddam invaded Kuwait."

This is all too difficult for their inbred ape brains.

"Ancient History": U.S. Conduct in the Middle East Since World War II and the Folly of Intervention | Cato Institute

Do yourself a favor and read the entire document. The link to it is at the bottom.

 

[kaz]

buh buh but...Kaz never heard any of that. Reagan ended the Cold war - Kaz never heard that either.

Seems like Obama is the only POTUS who doesnt get the credit for being the CiC. The only one....weird huh?

We started an "unwarranted" war against Afghanistan, we attacked them first. There is seriously no depths of depravity you people won't sink to or hold a circle jerk over.

They were given ample warning and opportunity to hand over bin laden and thumbed their noses at us - Liberal Half Wits completely ignore the 3,000 + Americans killed on 9-11 as the catalyst - it's an inconvenient fact you choose to ignore and do a grave injustice to not only their memories, but our country and the memories of the brave young men who fought in Afghanistan and Iraq -

You're the same genre of socio-fascist scumbags who spit on my brothers and cousins when they came back from Nam .

Um..we're on the same side, Fella

 

[kaz]

That's not the truth and I wonder if you know it or not. That's revisionist history. They were going to hand over Bin Ladin but Chaney said NO DEAL because they needed that war as an excuse to invade Iraq.

Talk about revisionist history. The Taliban said "if" they stopped the bombing, then they would discuss handing over Bin Laden "if" we could prove he was behind the 9/11 attack. Talk about an obvious BS stall tactic offer.

 

[ClosedCaption]

If our justification in invading Afghanistan was to fight AlQaida.....why did we pull the plug after Bush allowed bin Laden to escape? Why didn't we follow him and other terrorists into Pakistan?

After Bush diverted the war on terror to invade Iraq, why did we pull our troops back in Afganistan and allow AlQaida to regain lost territory

NONE of that seems to support an invasion whose intent was to fight AlQaida and capture Bin Laden

you are an ass.

A lot of things don't add up. Bush was personally warned by the fbi and even said to the guy "ok you covered your ass..." in Crawford TX.

We could have got Bin Ladin but Bush/The GOP/The Corporations/Defense Contractors wanted a quagmire. They let the boogy man go. They could use him as a boogy man. Remember color level threats one day red then orange? They played you playa.

While the republicans cry about Benghazi they have no qualms with scaring the entire nation for political gain

Tom Ridge: I Was Pressured To Raise Terror Alert To Help Bush Win

Ridge was never invited to sit in on National Security Council meetings; was "blindsided" by the FBI in morning Oval Office meetings because the agency withheld critical information from him; found his urgings to block Michael Brown from being named head of the emergency agency blamed for the Hurricane Katrina disaster ignored; and was pushed to raise the security alert on the eve of President Bush's re-election, something he saw as politically motivated and worth resigning over.

Seriousness of Threat Defended Despite Dated Intelligence (washingtonpost.com)

Bush administration officials acknowledged yesterday that the latest terrorism alert was based primarily on information that is three to four years old, but they aggressively defended the decision to warn financial sectors in Washington, New York and Newark because of the continuing threat posed by al Qaeda.

No problem

 

[BlindBoo]

This thread is a trick question for liberal idiots...

1) They can't tie the war in Afghanistan to Bin Laden because many of them believe the CIA and "Jews" attacked us on 9-11.

2) They can't think very long into the past so they have no clue the entire chain of events with Iraq started when "Saddam invaded Kuwait."

This is all too difficult for their inbred ape brains.

You are a bull shit artist who isn't half as wise as you fantasize you are. If you were you would not have stopped at Kuwait and would know that the chain began long before Kuwait.

I guess you, too, have a reading comprehension issue.

The reason the treaty with Hussein existed was strictly because of his invasion into Kuwait.

It was his breach of the treaty that prompted the second conflict.

Most think it was strictly because Bush knew for sure there were WMD's....when, in fact, it was because Hussein did not abide by the strict terms of the treaty by allowing UN inspectors access to ALL facilities ANYTIME they wanted.

Now, sure, you and those that simply hate Bush will say "untrue. They had access all they wanted...blah blah blah...

But simply saying it doesn't make it true and it most certainly does not explain why the UN was on board for the second conflict

No it wasn't. The UN didn't have anything to do with the US led invasion in 2003. The UN was in the middle of carrying out SCR 1441. It should be pointed out that the Bush Administration signed on to 1441 and then disregarded our obligations to the UN by invading Iraq anyway. The UN came in to try help with the post war Iraq.

The United Nations secretary general, Kofi Annan, declared explicitly for the first time last night that the US-led war on Iraq was illegal.
Mr Annan said that the invasion was not sanctioned by the UN security council or in accordance with the UN's founding charter. In an interview with the BBC World Service broadcast last night, he was asked outright if the war was illegal. He replied: "Yes, if you wish."

He then added unequivocally: "I have indicated it was not in conformity with the UN charter. From our point of view and from the charter point of view it was illegal."

Iraq war was illegal and breached UN charter, says Annan | World news | The Guardian

 

[JT8691]

Not only did Bush start two unwarranted wars, he botched the execution of both wars and got thousands of Americans and innocent civilians killed

I worked across Liberty Street at Bankers Trust (now part of Deusche Bank) from the World Trade Center in the 90s. Came up through the WTC subway station every morning and walked across the street. I knew a lot of people in that area. The morning of the attacks I was in Connecticut in the New York Suburbs in training. All of us were frantically calling people to find out if they were OK. I didn't go down to south Manhattan again for over 10 years, I just didn't want to see it.

That we attacked Afghanistan and that it was "unwarranted" just shows what a sick **** you are. And for what? A pathetic attempt at some Partisan political points? Go to hell, asshole.

Some of these assholes need to watch footage form 9/11 again on youtube. Watching people jump off of the buildings, and the towers falling....and it's "unjust" that we retaliated against that? They're either A) morons B) complete assholes C) will never admit they're wrong about something or D) all of the above.

I'm going with "D".

 

[rightwinger]

Not only did Bush start two unwarranted wars, he botched the execution of both wars and got thousands of Americans and innocent civilians killed

I worked across Liberty Street at Bankers Trust (now part of Deusche Bank) from the World Trade Center in the 90s. Came up through the WTC subway station every morning and walked across the street. I knew a lot of people in that area. The morning of the attacks I was in Connecticut in the New York Suburbs in training. All of us were frantically calling people to find out if they were OK. I didn't go down to south Manhattan again for over 10 years, I just didn't want to see it.

That we attacked Afghanistan and that it was "unwarranted" just shows what a sick **** you are. And for what? A pathetic attempt at some Partisan political points? Go to hell, asshole.

Some of these assholes need to watch footage form 9/11 again on youtube. Watching people jump off of the buildings, and the towers falling....and it's "unjust" that we retaliated against that? They're either A) morons B) complete assholes C) will never admit they're wrong about something or D) all of the above.

I'm going with "D".

We lost 3000 Americans on 9-11

In retaliation we lost close to another 10,000 in nation building Afghanistan and Iraq

In retrospect, was it worth it? I am leaning towards NO

 

[kaz]

buh buh but...Kaz never heard any of that. Reagan ended the Cold war - Kaz never heard that either.

Seems like Obama is the only POTUS who doesnt get the credit for being the CiC. The only one....weird huh?

We started an "unwarranted" war against Afghanistan, we attacked them first. There is seriously no depths of depravity you people won't sink to or hold a circle jerk over.

Go ahead, Give Obama credit like you do the other POTUS and stop this foolish change the subject act of yours

I wouldn't say I give W "Credit" for Iraq, I am against that invasion.

As for your game of equating credit at different levels, just more liberal word games. I give Obama the same credit for capturing Bin Laden I give W for capturing Hussein, none, the military did that.

Invading Iraq was an actual policy, and W shouldn't have done it.

 

[JT8691]

I worked across Liberty Street at Bankers Trust (now part of Deusche Bank) from the World Trade Center in the 90s. Came up through the WTC subway station every morning and walked across the street. I knew a lot of people in that area. The morning of the attacks I was in Connecticut in the New York Suburbs in training. All of us were frantically calling people to find out if they were OK. I didn't go down to south Manhattan again for over 10 years, I just didn't want to see it.

That we attacked Afghanistan and that it was "unwarranted" just shows what a sick **** you are. And for what? A pathetic attempt at some Partisan political points? Go to hell, asshole.

Some of these assholes need to watch footage form 9/11 again on youtube. Watching people jump off of the buildings, and the towers falling....and it's "unjust" that we retaliated against that? They're either A) morons B) complete assholes C) will never admit they're wrong about something or D) all of the above.

I'm going with "D".

We lost 3000 Americans on 9-11

In retaliation we lost close to another 10,000 in nation building Afghanistan and Iraq

In retrospect, was it worth it? I am leaning towards NO

I'm not for the nation building aspect of Afghanistan....and I'm 100% against the Iraq war. But the decision to go to war with Afghanistan (ok really the tribes/groups that were responsible for 9/11), is an easy one.

How was going into Afghanistan unjust?

 

[ClosedCaption]

Not only did Bush start two unwarranted wars, he botched the execution of both wars and got thousands of Americans and innocent civilians killed

I worked across Liberty Street at Bankers Trust (now part of Deusche Bank) from the World Trade Center in the 90s. Came up through the WTC subway station every morning and walked across the street. I knew a lot of people in that area. The morning of the attacks I was in Connecticut in the New York Suburbs in training. All of us were frantically calling people to find out if they were OK. I didn't go down to south Manhattan again for over 10 years, I just didn't want to see it.

That we attacked Afghanistan and that it was "unwarranted" just shows what a sick **** you are. And for what? A pathetic attempt at some Partisan political points? Go to hell, asshole.

Some of these assholes need to watch footage form 9/11 again on youtube. Watching people jump off of the buildings, and the towers falling....and it's "unjust" that we retaliated against that? They're either A) morons B) complete assholes C) will never admit they're wrong about something or D) all of the above.

I'm going with "D".

Bolded logical fallacy: Appeal to Emotion

And what did Saddam have to do with that?

 

[kaz]

I worked across Liberty Street at Bankers Trust (now part of Deusche Bank) from the World Trade Center in the 90s. Came up through the WTC subway station every morning and walked across the street. I knew a lot of people in that area. The morning of the attacks I was in Connecticut in the New York Suburbs in training. All of us were frantically calling people to find out if they were OK. I didn't go down to south Manhattan again for over 10 years, I just didn't want to see it.

That we attacked Afghanistan and that it was "unwarranted" just shows what a sick **** you are. And for what? A pathetic attempt at some Partisan political points? Go to hell, asshole.

Some of these assholes need to watch footage form 9/11 again on youtube. Watching people jump off of the buildings, and the towers falling....and it's "unjust" that we retaliated against that? They're either A) morons B) complete assholes C) will never admit they're wrong about something or D) all of the above.

I'm going with "D".

We lost 3000 Americans on 9-11

In retaliation we lost close to another 10,000 in nation building Afghanistan and Iraq

In retrospect, was it worth it? I am leaning towards NO

The point is that you're saying W started the Afghanistan war and it was "unwarranted." That has nothing to do with Iraq or nation building in Afghanistan, it has to do with the 3,000 who died in New York that you're too stupid and politically motivated to grasp the connection between that and blowing the crap out of the people who were behind it.

Duh, dar, what did Afghanistan have to do with 9/11? That's what you hang your hat on? You're a pathetic excuse for a human being.

 

[kaz]

I worked across Liberty Street at Bankers Trust (now part of Deusche Bank) from the World Trade Center in the 90s. Came up through the WTC subway station every morning and walked across the street. I knew a lot of people in that area. The morning of the attacks I was in Connecticut in the New York Suburbs in training. All of us were frantically calling people to find out if they were OK. I didn't go down to south Manhattan again for over 10 years, I just didn't want to see it.

That we attacked Afghanistan and that it was "unwarranted" just shows what a sick **** you are. And for what? A pathetic attempt at some Partisan political points? Go to hell, asshole.

Some of these assholes need to watch footage form 9/11 again on youtube. Watching people jump off of the buildings, and the towers falling....and it's "unjust" that we retaliated against that? They're either A) morons B) complete assholes C) will never admit they're wrong about something or D) all of the above.

I'm going with "D".

Bolded logical fallacy: Appeal to Emotion

And what did Saddam have to do with that?

No one is disputing that W attacked Iraq, dumb ass. The threat title is that W started "two" wars that were "unwarranted."

Read the quote again regarding the Afghanistan one. You and RW are sick *****. There is clearly no reason to not question any further your hatred of this country or complete indoctrination into the Democratic party.

 

[rightwinger]

Some of these assholes need to watch footage form 9/11 again on youtube. Watching people jump off of the buildings, and the towers falling....and it's "unjust" that we retaliated against that? They're either A) morons B) complete assholes C) will never admit they're wrong about something or D) all of the above.

I'm going with "D".

We lost 3000 Americans on 9-11

In retaliation we lost close to another 10,000 in nation building Afghanistan and Iraq

In retrospect, was it worth it? I am leaning towards NO

I'm not for the nation building aspect of Afghanistan....and I'm 100% against the Iraq war. But the decision to go to war with Afghanistan (ok really the tribes/groups that were responsible for 9/11), is an easy one.

How was going into Afghanistan unjust?

I had no issue with a military incursion into Afghanistan to kick AlQaida's ass. We should have gone, cut off the Tora Bora escape routes and rounded them up. After that, we should have declared our mission accomplished in Afganistan. In and out in two years

The idea that we could create and maintain a functioning Democracy in our image was not worth it