Reagan Said It Best

[Sallow]

Iran Contra?......He did nothing wrong.....As was was fully proven after a full investigation and dog and pony show congressional hearing.
.

That's completely incorrect. There were findings of wrong doing..the congress didn't take it any further because it would have involved removal of a very popular President.

But he was made to apologize on National Television..

[ame]http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=R67CH-qhXJs[/ame]

Watch it fully.

Oliver North was convicted of wrongdoing.

Later the ACLU got his ass out of the jam.

Conservatives put the Constitution in the toilet on this one. As they always do.

 

[The Rabbi]

Are you really that dense? Denying needed funding for the military is not an option when they are in the middle of a fight that Bush started. It would be akin to denying an airliner fuel in mid-flight.

How easy would it have been to pass a law that said, "We allocate the sum of $50 billion to be used solely on re-deploying personnel and assets from the Iraqi Theater of Operations."

It would have been very easy. You're just making excuses for the Democrats.

It appears DaGoose has left the conversation. It is a no-win for him. If continuing the war was wrong, then why did the Dems in Congress not vote to cut off funding? If continuing the war was right, then why did the Dems in Congress pass many resolutions condemning the war?
It is a no-win situation for them.
The truth is they wanted to coddle their base by appearing to stand up to Bush but were too cowardly to take responsibility for ending the war.

 

[The Rabbi]

One sounds like an arrogant know-it-all douchebag.....which, ask any female, that isn't marriage material.............................

and one sounds like a pragmatist who favors all ideas on the table, to weigh and deliberate.

I dont know what the **** you're talking about. I doubt you do either.
FWIW, the first quote is from that conservative Republican Hubert Humphrey. The second is of course Obama.

 

[The T]

One sounds like an arrogant know-it-all douchebag.....which, ask any female, that isn't marriage material.............................

and one sounds like a pragmatist who favors all ideas on the table, to weigh and deliberate.

I dont know what the **** you're talking about. I doubt you do either.
FWIW, the first quote is from that conservative Republican Hubert Humphrey. The second is of course Obama.

After a thread length of 163 posts they still don't get it even after it was revealed.

~Kudos.

 

[daveman]

But then they kept paying the bills when they could have stopped the money.

Which President has ever been denied a war they wanted?

So you're saying Democrats are spineless? That, or you acknowledge they just flat-out lied to you so you'd vote for them.

It's NEVER the Democrats' fault, is it?

 

[G.T.]

One sounds like an arrogant know-it-all douchebag.....which, ask any female, that isn't marriage material.............................

and one sounds like a pragmatist who favors all ideas on the table, to weigh and deliberate.

I dont know what the **** you're talking about. I doubt you do either.
FWIW, the first quote is from that conservative Republican Hubert Humphrey. The second is of course Obama.

My post was pretty clear in regards to the quotes. Ass clown.

 

[daveman]

Of course I would because it is UNNECESSARY. Just like Iraq was UNNECESSARY.

We were still technically at war with Iraq too remember?

Funny I can't get you to simply say whether the Iraq invasion was necessary. And whether invasion of NK is now necessary.

You're really not paying attention, are you?

Invading Iraq was necessary, and relatively cheap in terms of human lives

Invading NoKo is necessary, but prohibitively costly in terms of human lives.

If we could eliminate all NoKo leadership in one swoop, it'd be great, but the question becomes the depth of programming of the NoKo troops. Would they fight on, even without leadership from Pyongyang? Remember, the North Korean people know nothing but what their government has told them and are inculcated with a fanatical devotion to Dear Leader. Can they break free of that, or would they rather die fighting the imperialists?

You may choose to break this down to protest-sign slogans, but the reality is far more complex.

Lunacy and completely naive.

Pure and simple on both counts.

No, it's a fairly accurate assessment.

"Hope" and "change" and "yes we can" are lunatic and completely naive. And you were dumb enough to fall for them.

 

[daveman]

Are you really that dense? Denying needed funding for the military is not an option when they are in the middle of a fight that Bush started. It would be akin to denying an airliner fuel in mid-flight.

How easy would it have been to pass a law that said, "We allocate the sum of $50 billion to be used solely on re-deploying personnel and assets from the Iraqi Theater of Operations."

It would have been very easy. You're just making excuses for the Democrats.

It appears DaGoose has left the conversation. It is a no-win for him. If continuing the war was wrong, then why did the Dems in Congress not vote to cut off funding? If continuing the war was right, then why did the Dems in Congress pass many resolutions condemning the war?
It is a no-win situation for them.
The truth is they wanted to coddle their base by appearing to stand up to Bush but were too cowardly to take responsibility for ending the war.

Bingo. And now the party faithful are left trying to spin and excuse the way they've been used.

 

[The T]

How easy would it have been to pass a law that said, "We allocate the sum of $50 billion to be used solely on re-deploying personnel and assets from the Iraqi Theater of Operations."

It would have been very easy. You're just making excuses for the Democrats.

It appears DaGoose has left the conversation. It is a no-win for him. If continuing the war was wrong, then why did the Dems in Congress not vote to cut off funding? If continuing the war was right, then why did the Dems in Congress pass many resolutions condemning the war?
It is a no-win situation for them.
The truth is they wanted to coddle their base by appearing to stand up to Bush but were too cowardly to take responsibility for ending the war.

Bingo. And now the party faithful are left trying to spin and excuse the way they've been used.

Screwed and not kissed again.

 

[DaGoose]

1) How could have the Dems "stopped the war"? (I think I know where your going but want to see if you say it.)

Cut off the money. They didn't do that.

2) What makes you think "invading and occupying Iraq" justifies the deaths of over 4,000 of our military? (I can't wait to see your answer to this one!!)

It's brought an increasing amount of stability to an unstable region. It's allowed the Iraqi people to have a say in their own future. It's developing an ally and trading partner.

Hint: All those are good things.

You'll have a difficult time convincing me that your opposition to the invasion is more due to concern for our military than opposition to whatever Bush wanted.

That's bullshit my friend. I stood with Bush in the aftermath of 9/11. I supported him when he said we were going after Bin Laden in Afghanistan and I still support that decision.

Are you really that dense? Denying needed funding for the military is not an option when they are in the middle of a fight that Bush started. It would be akin to denying an airliner fuel in mid-flight.

How easy would it have been to pass a law that said, "We allocate the sum of $50 billion to be used solely on re-deploying personnel and assets from the Iraqi Theater of Operations."

It would have been very easy. You're just making excuses for the Democrats.

As easy as you making any excuses or accusations to justify your ceaseless support of Bush?

Are you really that dense? Denying needed funding for the military is not an option when they are in the middle of a fight that Bush started. It would be akin to denying an airliner fuel in mid-flight.

How easy would it have been to pass a law that said, "We allocate the sum of $50 billion to be used solely on re-deploying personnel and assets from the Iraqi Theater of Operations."

It would have been very easy. You're just making excuses for the Democrats.

It appears DaGoose has left the conversation. It is a no-win for him. If continuing the war was wrong, then why did the Dems in Congress not vote to cut off funding? If continuing the war was right, then why did the Dems in Congress pass many resolutions condemning the war?
It is a no-win situation for them.
The truth is they wanted to coddle their base by appearing to stand up to Bush but were too cowardly to take responsibility for ending the war.

This isn't about what the Dems did or did not do. This is about you and daveman trying to justify the thousands of our military deaths in Iraq.

So please try again. You two are failing miserably.

 

[Sallow]

But then they kept paying the bills when they could have stopped the money.

Which President has ever been denied a war they wanted?

So you're saying Democrats are spineless? That, or you acknowledge they just flat-out lied to you so you'd vote for them.

It's NEVER the Democrats' fault, is it?

No. You don't get it.

I am saying that in this country's history..the President's "power" to get a war that President wants..has never been challenged.

If you want to find something in history that contradicts that, be my guest. It's not a left or right thing..it's simply the way things have been run up until now.

Stop getting so emotional.

 

[daveman]

It appears DaGoose has left the conversation. It is a no-win for him. If continuing the war was wrong, then why did the Dems in Congress not vote to cut off funding? If continuing the war was right, then why did the Dems in Congress pass many resolutions condemning the war?
It is a no-win situation for them.
The truth is they wanted to coddle their base by appearing to stand up to Bush but were too cowardly to take responsibility for ending the war.

Bingo. And now the party faithful are left trying to spin and excuse the way they've been used.

Screwed and not kissed again.

But they come back for more, every time.

 

[DaGoose]

Which President has ever been denied a war they wanted?

So you're saying Democrats are spineless? That, or you acknowledge they just flat-out lied to you so you'd vote for them.

It's NEVER the Democrats' fault, is it?

No. You don't get it.

I am saying that in this country's history..the President's "power" to get a war that President wants..has never been challenged.

If you want to find something in history that contradicts that, be my guest. It's not a left or right thing..it's simply the way things have been run up until now.

Stop getting so emotional.

The only time he gets emotional is when he's getting his ass handed to him, usually by me.

So yes, he's been getting pretty emotional lately.

 

[NYcarbineer]

You're really not paying attention, are you?

Invading Iraq was necessary, and relatively cheap in terms of human lives

Invading NoKo is necessary, but prohibitively costly in terms of human lives.

If we could eliminate all NoKo leadership in one swoop, it'd be great, but the question becomes the depth of programming of the NoKo troops. Would they fight on, even without leadership from Pyongyang? Remember, the North Korean people know nothing but what their government has told them and are inculcated with a fanatical devotion to Dear Leader. Can they break free of that, or would they rather die fighting the imperialists?

You may choose to break this down to protest-sign slogans, but the reality is far more complex.

Lunacy and completely naive.

Pure and simple on both counts.

No, it's a fairly accurate assessment.

"Hope" and "change" and "yes we can" are lunatic and completely naive. And you were dumb enough to fall for them.

You don't think Reagan ran on 'hope' and 'change'?

...careful... lol

 

[daveman]

1) How could have the Dems "stopped the war"? (I think I know where your going but want to see if you say it.)

Cut off the money. They didn't do that.

It's brought an increasing amount of stability to an unstable region. It's allowed the Iraqi people to have a say in their own future. It's developing an ally and trading partner.

Hint: All those are good things.

You'll have a difficult time convincing me that your opposition to the invasion is more due to concern for our military than opposition to whatever Bush wanted.

That's bullshit my friend. I stood with Bush in the aftermath of 9/11. I supported him when he said we were going after Bin Laden in Afghanistan and I still support that decision.

Ahhh. So you "support the troops but not their mission".

That's like supporting the fire department, but not when they put out fires.

As easy as you making any excuses or accusations to justify your ceaseless support of Bush?

You speak out of ignorance. I've criticized Bush many times.

You, however, are incapable of criticizing Democrats.

 

[Sallow]

No, it's a fairly accurate assessment.

"Hope" and "change" and "yes we can" are lunatic and completely naive. And you were dumb enough to fall for them.

No, like I posted it is and was lunacy and incredibly naive.

Iraq has cost the United States big. No matter how you slice it. It's put this country in the tank economically, has assured our involvement, militarily, for a long time to come, and destablized a huge source of oil. We are going to spend lots of time and money to keep it pacified. It's crushed our international prestige as a nation that respects others sovereign rights and has allowed for actions such as the invasion of Georgia and the suppression of riots in Tibet to go unabated. We simply didn't or don't have the moral grounding any more to complain about invasions that aren't instigated by real threats.

And as far as North Korea goes..it's nuts to think we can invade. The geopolitical climate doesn't allow for it. There is no way China would go for a united Korea without some kind of concession some where. And that concession might well be Taiwan. That..is simply unacceptable no matter how you cut it.

 

[NYcarbineer]

Yes, the difference is that one requires conviction and the other is merely posturing for the electorate.
Iraq posed no threat to anyone? Really? Have you been asleep for 30 years?
As to the goals, go back and review some of the 100's of threads on this topic.

Are you really that dense? Denying needed funding for the military is not an option when they are in the middle of a fight that Bush started. It would be akin to denying an airliner fuel in mid-flight.

As for you justifying the deaths of our military I gues your answer is, "No answer". And that's fine!! I wouldn't be able to answer and justify it either.

If the war was wrong then the right thing would have been to stop it. Are you saying that it was OK to let thousands of Americans get killed for nothing?
Are you still maintaining Iraq was not a threat to anyone? I mean, given Saddam's 30 year career of funding and supporting terrorism, which is why Bush singled him out.

Iran has funded more terrorism that Saddam ever did. Doesn't that make an invasion of Iran NECESSARY?

 

[daveman]

Which President has ever been denied a war they wanted?

So you're saying Democrats are spineless? That, or you acknowledge they just flat-out lied to you so you'd vote for them.

It's NEVER the Democrats' fault, is it?

No. You don't get it.

I am saying that in this country's history..the President's "power" to get a war that President wants..has never been challenged.

If you want to find something in history that contradicts that, be my guest. It's not a left or right thing..it's simply the way things have been run up until now.

Stop getting so emotional.

I'm not emotional; I'm not a leftist.

Meanwhile, you're claiming the Democrats lacked the spine to do what they felt was right, do to what they said they'd do.

The only question is did they know they were lying when they ran on that promise, or did they slink away with their tails between their legs when it came time to fulfill their promise?

 

[Mr Natural]

Are you really that dense? Denying needed funding for the military is not an option when they are in the middle of a fight that Bush started. It would be akin to denying an airliner fuel in mid-flight.

As for you justifying the deaths of our military I gues your answer is, "No answer". And that's fine!! I wouldn't be able to answer and justify it either.

If the war was wrong then the right thing would have been to stop it. Are you saying that it was OK to let thousands of Americans get killed for nothing?
Are you still maintaining Iraq was not a threat to anyone? I mean, given Saddam's 30 year career of funding and supporting terrorism, which is why Bush singled him out.

Iran has funded more terrorism that Saddam ever did. Doesn't that make an invasion of Iran NECESSARY?

And Iran's support of terrorism pales in comparison to that of our "good friends" the Saudis.

When do we invade them?

 

[NYcarbineer]

The Democrats voted against the Iraq war.

But then they kept paying the bills when they could have stopped the money.

I love how you're obfuscating about the necessity to invade North Korea while trying to cling to your belief that the Iraq invasion was necessary.

I'm not obfuscating. I've made my position quite clear. Your inability or unwillingness to understand what I'm saying says more about you than it does me.

You do realize that not all Democrats opposed the Iraq war correct?