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

[Camp]

Bush did not start both wars?

Then who was commander in chief?

Here we are folks, he still thinks Bush started both wars. Yes, he does. Then again he claimed he was gung ho about one of the wars that Bush supposedly started.


How is he not a truther everyone.

Can you believe they make sense to each other?

What are you saying?

That Bush didn't start these wars?

Get it out there.

And enough with the truther plagiarism. Shows the poster to be not only dumb and dishonest, but delusional as well.

 

[Discombobulated]

Lol they still claim Bush started two unwarranted wars.

Truthers.

Whatever point you thought you were making with this thread has been a complete waste of time. You've failed utterly.

 

[Sallow]

None of which constituted an imminent threat to our security, there was no compelling reason to make any choice or decide to do anything at all about Iraq. You present false choices.

Oh now there's a HUGE cop-out.. You won't actually SAY that we should have continued to bomb Iraq daily and keep it's economy on lockdown. OR -- let Saddam OUT of containment. Did you have ANOTHER PLAN? One that didn't involve another 12 years of guard duty and keeping the Euros from restoring relations with him?

You just want to blame the guy that DID SOMETHING to end the bad policy. Or ignore the bad policy entirely. Which is it ??

I have yet to this day to get a SINGLE critic of the Iraq War to admit that the alternatives included some pretty piss poor choices like letting him out of containment because the WMD charges were fraudulent. Or to justify another 12 years of locking up their economy, destroying their infrastructure and denying them food and medicine.

ANY Bush Bashers got the guts to acknowledge that? To acknowledge that the Euros were done with the embargo and we were the only ones crazy enough to keep Saddam in containment?

OK. I think I am starting get where you are going. We should have NEVER gone into Iraq but once we went in, we had no choice but to take Saddam down because he would have most likely retaliated by supporting Islamic militant groups. Had we NOT gone into that country, Saddam, for all his murderous ways, was wise enough to know he was beat and he would lose his country if he did support Al-Quaeda. We brushed his military off like a fly on our shoulder in Desert Storm and he knew we were watching him.

I would never support a scumbag like Saddam. I do however support rationality and the truth. The truth is that Saddam was never a threat. He was happy, raping, pillaging and torturing his own people to keep order and he lived like a King. Rationally speaking, that was an Iraqi problem. Not an American problem and not even an international problem. Saddam knew his place and he stayed there. He was basically the Kim Jong Un on the Middle East.

Bush and Cheney were already planning to make a case to go into Iraq before 9/11. This started almost as soon as Bush took office.....this is fact. They never would have been able to make the case if it weren't for the 9/11 attacks which pretty put the country in "kill all mulsims and bomb the middle east" mode so we were ready to believe anything we were told that would have justified it. I bought into it too which is why these days I am all about skepticism and fact-finding because I will never be duped like that again.

Actually..that's not even the case.

In terms of a despot? Hussien doesn't even rank so high.

Was he a thug? Sure. But for the most part and before American Sanctions, Iraqis lived pretty well. Iraq was a modern and relatively secular nation. And as long as you didn't make much noise? You weren't bothered. True, Shias had a glass ceiling, but they weren't dropping dead in the streets and they could live pretty well.

Things went south when Saddam Hussien refused to leave Kuwait.

 

[rightwinger]

Lol they still claim Bush started two unwarranted wars.

Truthers.

Whatever point you thought you were making with this thread has been a complete waste of time. You've failed utterly.

I don't really know what his intent was with this thread. Whatever it is, it has failed miserably

 

[Sallow]

Which could have been accomplished without full scale military action...like how we got Bin Laden and have been fighting terrorism. You can't declare war on an ideology.

Personally? I don't think so.

It would have been incredibly hard and dangerous using covert ops. Think Bay of Pigs.

Bush actually did this the right way.

He went to the Taliban, gave them a time table and they actually screwed that up.

Had Bush kept the mission limited? He would be celebrated now.

The war in Afghanistan was over in weeks and the loss of life was very minimal.

More proof that the far left is not capable of operating in reality and should not be in charge of anything.

Feel free.

Point by point.

Go over what's wrong with the post.

 

[Sallow]

Lol they still claim Bush started two unwarranted wars.

Truthers.

Whatever point you thought you were making with this thread has been a complete waste of time. You've failed utterly.

I don't really know what his intent was with this thread. Whatever it is, it has failed miserably

The "intent" is the map the 9/11 "truthers" with the people who have been saying the invasion of Iraq was a colossal mistake.

Even FOX and Conservative pundits are starting (just) to come to that realization.

Maybe this is coming from Alex Jones or something.

 

[Theowl32]

They still actually believe Bush started both wars and they still think they were unwarranted.

I wonder if they think America started the war with Japan.

You know, I think they do.

My intention was to clearly reveal the ignorance of the left, the hypocrisy of the left and everything makes the left nothing but a bunch of puppets for their democratic puppet masters.

I have succeeded remarkably.

 

[Sallow]

They still actually believe Bush started both wars and they still think they were unwarranted.

I wonder if they think America started the war with Japan.

You know, I think they do.

My intention was to clearly reveal the ignorance of the left, the hypocrisy of the left and everything makes the left nothing but a bunch of puppets for their democratic puppet masters.

I have succeeded remarkably.

Do you understand the difference between a nation and a group?

Because it seems clearly you don't.

And you don't seem to understand the difference between at terrorist attack and a declaration of war.

 

[Discombobulated]

They still actually believe Bush started both wars and they still think they were unwarranted.

I wonder if they think America started the war with Japan.

You know, I think they do.

My intention was to clearly reveal the ignorance of the left, the hypocrisy of the left and everything makes the left nothing but a bunch of puppets for their democratic puppet masters.

I have succeeded remarkably.

Again you've failed.

 

[GreenBean]

Revenge shouldn't be the motivation for any war. That's basically ridiculous.

And no nation attacked us, directly. If you want to get into "indirectly" the two actors on this page were Afghanistan (Who were basically clueless about what happened) and Saudi Arabia (Who financed the operation and okayed the operation).

Afghanistan was basically hosting terrorist camps for money. They didn't know or care why they were there. Most of the Taliban knew nothing about 9/11 and when the US invaded? They thought they were fighting Soviets again. Some of them still do.

Afghanistan should have been a very limited operation. The goals being:

1. Wipe out the terrorist camps.
2. Decapitate the Al Qaeda leadership.

It was simple enough and nearly got done.

But that wasn't the Bush agenda. The Bush agenda was to attack Iraq. He was saying he wanted to do that before he became President..and when he found a reason?

He did it.

And the consequences were enormous.

More nonsensical bullshit from an asshole pathetic left wing pig.

It is not about "revenge" necessarily. They declared WAR you ******* hack!

When Japan attacked Pearl Harbor...they killed less than 3000.

Never mind you piece of unreal shit. You ******* people are so ******* ignorant AND pathetic.

**** YOU!

Al Qaeda isn't a nation.

Do you understand that?

Nor is Communism "a Nation" or neither was National Socialism for that matter .

Al Qaeda is part of a larger Nation-The Nation Of Islam - which is a thousand years behind in its dogma and seeks nothing less than the death and or subjugation of all infidels.

Do YOU understand that?

 

[Sallow]

More nonsensical bullshit from an asshole pathetic left wing pig.

It is not about "revenge" necessarily. They declared WAR you ******* hack!

When Japan attacked Pearl Harbor...they killed less than 3000.

Never mind you piece of unreal shit. You ******* people are so ******* ignorant AND pathetic.

**** YOU!

Al Qaeda isn't a nation.

Do you understand that?

Nor is Communism "a Nation" or neither was National Socialism for that matter .

Al Qaeda is part of a larger Nation-The Nation Of Islam - which is a thousand years behind in its dogma and seeks nothing less than the death and or subjugation of all infidels.

Do YOU understand that?

Politically?

A nation actually has a population, geography, a government and dominion over resources.

A nation can choose what sort of government it will use to administer those things.

Groups? Hold no land, no population or dominion over resources.

That's the difference in a nutshell.

And a terrorist group may be located in many different nations. And? Those nations may or may not agree with their goals.

That's why it's almost impossible to "wage war" on a group.

 

[rightwinger]

They still actually believe Bush started both wars and they still think they were unwarranted.

I wonder if they think America started the war with Japan.

You know, I think they do.

My intention was to clearly reveal the ignorance of the left, the hypocrisy of the left and everything makes the left nothing but a bunch of puppets for their democratic puppet masters.

I have succeeded remarkably.

Another self proclaimed victory not warranted from this thread

 

[BlindBoo]

They still actually believe Bush started both wars and they still think they were unwarranted.

I wonder if they think America started the war with Japan.

You know, I think they do.

My intention was to clearly reveal the ignorance of the left, the hypocrisy of the left and everything makes the left nothing but a bunch of puppets for their democratic puppet masters.

I have succeeded remarkably.

Yes you have Herr Goebbels, yes you have.

[ame=http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=G2y8Sx4B2Sk]You keep using that word. - YouTube[/ame]

 

[rightwinger]

It is all part of the Bush legacy..

Bush envisioned greatness from his presidency. The man who recreated the Islamic world and defeated terrorism once and for all. Simple, just a couple of quick and painless invasions, create a couple of democracies and watch them flow throughout the region

Instead, he botched two wars, unsettled the entire region and let loose centuries of animosities

That is the Bush legacy

 

[Theowl32]

LOL at the liberals still insisting he started two unwarranted wars.

Really are ******* morons.

I ******* refuse to bring up the towers on 911 you stupid ass ******* morons. Oh wait, did I just do that?

Now rightwinger will say they were not a nation. No, the taliban who governed that nation harbored them. Oh right, they were just oh so ******* innocent and Bush Cheney along with the rest of oil hungry white people from America were all guilty. \

Pathetic ******* blobs.

Let us hear from you, you stupid truthers.

 

[flacaltenn]

I marched this day,
We anti-war protesters were right: the Iraq invasion has led to bloody chaos | Owen Jones | Comment is free | theguardian.com

I didn't march.. I was against the war also. On the basis of crumbling evidence at the UN and crumbling support from the Euros on the containment. The difference is --- I wanted to end 12 years of HORRIBLE Iraq policy by letting Saddam out of containment. YOU on the other hand, will not answer the question of WHAT you would have done.. And I bet 90% of the marchers had no clue either. Lots of chants -- no balls in sight.. Just pretending that 200,000 Iraqis hadn't already died from those 12 years of horrible deprivation, destruction and food shortages..

 

[flacaltenn]

None of which constituted an imminent threat to our security, there was no compelling reason to make any choice or decide to do anything at all about Iraq. You present false choices.

Oh now there's a HUGE cop-out.. You won't actually SAY that we should have continued to bomb Iraq daily and keep it's economy on lockdown. OR -- let Saddam OUT of containment. Did you have ANOTHER PLAN? One that didn't involve another 12 years of guard duty and keeping the Euros from restoring relations with him?

You just want to blame the guy that DID SOMETHING to end the bad policy. Or ignore the bad policy entirely. Which is it ??

I have yet to this day to get a SINGLE critic of the Iraq War to admit that the alternatives included some pretty piss poor choices like letting him out of containment because the WMD charges were fraudulent. Or to justify another 12 years of locking up their economy, destroying their infrastructure and denying them food and medicine.

ANY Bush Bashers got the guts to acknowledge that? To acknowledge that the Euros were done with the embargo and we were the only ones crazy enough to keep Saddam in containment?

No problem whatsoever with letting him out of "containment".

He really wasn't causing any trouble at all.

It was basic conflation to justify gloaming Iraqi oil.

At the time that the WMD story was being embellished and fabricated -- was that your position? Were YOU certain that the containment was for false purposes? How do you think that proposition would have polled amongst the Left?

BUT --- I appreciate your ability to say that.. You are #1 to admit that...

 

[flacaltenn]

Add my name to that list

That is what I thought rightwinger. You already said Bush did not start both wars, and now you are adding your pathetic double talking, hypocritical name to the list that says he did start both wars.


You stupid ******* double talking hypocritical piece of steaming shit.

Bush did not start both wars?

Then who was commander in chief?

C'mon man.. Do you not know the Bush doctrine? Afghan was the NECCESSARY war. And Iraq was the PRE-EMPTIVE war.. The entire concept of thumping threats BEFORE they cause a war was born with that decision..

 

[flacaltenn]

I just want Jedi and Dicombob and Sallow to say it.. Tell us that we should kept the Iraqis locked up with a madman while we bombed them daily and took away their economy.. OR do the right thing and let him out of containment. Either choice... THEN we can chat about what Booooosh decided to do to change an awful policy that would have hindered our efforts in Afghan anyway with YOUR preferred choices..

Thats the honesty required to resolve this issue of how we got here.

I'll say it.

Bombing Iraq and putting it under sanctions was a cruel policy. That goes for who ever was doing it, be it George HW Bush or Bill Clinton.

We've had a terrible policy about Iraq for a very long time. And it was mainly at the behest of the big oil lobby.

Almost thanked you there. If it wasn't for the token tired "blood for oil" chant.. Big Oil got NOTHING of significance out of the Iraq war. We didn't even get the Iraqis to chip in for our liberation.. Of course, they probably had a good case for OFFSETTING COSTS with the 12 yrs of bombing and starvation that we imposed on them...

 

[TheJedi]

Almost thanked you there. If it wasn't for the token tired "blood for oil" chant.. Big Oil got NOTHING of significance out of the Iraq war. We didn't even get the Iraqis to chip in for our liberation.. Of course, they probably had a good case for OFFSETTING COSTS with the 12 yrs of bombing and starvation that we imposed on them...

Hmm. Let's look at how the price of oil and created windfall profits for oil companies:

World oil market chronology from 2003 - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

The war was highly profitable:

Top ten private firms made $72bn from decade of Iraq War | Iraq 2003 News | The Week UK

The paper's new analysis of the data, ten years after the US invaded on 20 March 2003, found the company to benefit most has been KBR, a former subsidiary of Halliburton, once run by George W. Bush's vice president, Dick Cheney.

KBR – formerly known as Kellog, Brown and Root – earned $39.5bn as one of the businesses supplying everything from diplomatic security to toilet paper. Even at the height of the war, there were times when there were more private contractors than troops on the ground in Iraq.

Read more: Top ten private firms made $72bn from decade of Iraq War | Iraq 2003 News | The Week UK