So now, BUSH caused ISIS?

[Faun]

Exactly how retarded are you? You didn't give a year?? You said it was "a year before" 2001. You should check again because the year before 2001 was 2000.

You misinterpreted. I said Bush pussyfooted around with the UN for nearly a year before going into Iraq. Part of the intelligence Colin Powell submitted to the UN was the meeting between the Iraqi defense minister and OBL, and I don't recall what year it happened.

I misrepresenting nothing. You said an Iraqi government official met with Osama bin Laden a year before 9.11. That would be in 2000. I can only go by what you say since no one other than you is making that ludicrous claim. And while watching you back pedal now is quite amusing because you got called out for spewing such idiocy, for you to deny saying that proves to me you're either lying, a raving lunatic, or a combination thereof.

But here is a direct quote from you saying what you now deny saying...

"He sent Fauriq Haziz to Afghanistan to meet with OBL a year before 9-11." - Boss​

... now then, tell me again how you said nothing about the year 2000 or how I misrepresented what you said.

Like I said earlier, you have no ******* clue about that of which you speak. You prove that time and time again.

 

[Rexx Taylor]

when a 8.5 hits Los Angeles next year, it will be blamed on Bush, and they will rename the fault as well.

 

[Boss]

Exactly how retarded are you? You didn't give a year?? You said it was "a year before" 2001. You should check again because the year before 2001 was 2000.

You misinterpreted. I said Bush pussyfooted around with the UN for nearly a year before going into Iraq. Part of the intelligence Colin Powell submitted to the UN was the meeting between the Iraqi defense minister and OBL, and I don't recall what year it happened.

I misrepresenting nothing. You said an Iraqi government official met with Osama bin Laden a year before 9.11. That would be in 2000. I can only go by what you say since no one other than you is making that ludicrous claim. And while watching you back pedal now is quite amusing because you got called out for spewing such idiocy, for you to deny saying that proves to me you're either lying, a raving lunatic, or a combination thereof.

But here is a direct quote from you saying what you now deny saying...

"He sent Fauriq Haziz to Afghanistan to meet with OBL a year before 9-11." - Boss​

... now then, tell me again how you said nothing about the year 2000 or how I misrepresented what you said.

Like I said earlier, you have no ******* clue about that of which you speak. You prove that time and time again.

You caught an error and I apologize for the mistake. That's all I can do. The meeting took place sometime before we invaded Iraq. If you don't believe evidence exists of such a meeting, you are a fool who has been brainwashed. The same goes for terrorist training camps in northern Iraq and the transport of chem/bio WMD technology and materials to Syria.

 

[Boss]

The 1998 Iraqi Liberation act calls for the removal of the Hussein regime and replacing it with a functioning democracy. That was the official US foreign policy BEFORE Bush had even thought about running for president.

Where does it say, "Launch a half-assed invasion against the advice of senior generals, ignoring international opinion"

It doesn't say that. The "half-assed invason" was voted on and approved by congress. Even if you maintain they were 'fooled' into it somehow, they had plenty of chances to stop any impending action on the part of the president. They also had full authority to suspend funding on any aspect of said plan. To pretend congress had no role and sat helpless while Bush waged war on Iraq is ignorant of how government operates in this country. It's no wonder you're an idiot liberal.

Well I base it on 80% of the population with purple thumbs on election day. And no, Lebanon and Pakistan have NEVER had western style democratic government.

They had to give all sorts of goodies to get people to come out for that photo op.

Yeah... they had to provide security for the relentless and persistent death threats to anyone who dared to show up. Bodyguards for the candidates who had many death threats, some successful.... They had to provide security for the polling precincts from suicide bombers and other fundie radicals wanting to disrupt democracy. Observers from 23 coalition nations and the US ensured fair and impartial elections.

But hey, bud... In your little fucked up world, if you want to honestly believe that some people don't want freedom and would rather live under a tyrant dictator instead, be my guest! I can't join you in that fantasy. I believe most people want liberty and freedom.

But MOST people also define freedom their own way. A lot of countries look at America and see how the rich have too much power and we execute people and have all these guns, and they look at us like we're backwards.

No they don't... Liberal fucktards like YOU do! That's YOUR view, and the Messiah and his Chewbacca wife.

The problem with our ME policy is that we've not been consistent in anything but protecting current American political interests. We haven't tried to solve problems or find resolutions, we can't be depended on... we say one thing and do another. Well tell this group we'll support you and help you win the battle and then we abandon them when they put it all on the line. We've done it over and over to them and they know we'll do it again, we always do. In the end, we protect our own political interests first --and **** them-- **** what we said or promised-- doesn't matter.

On an ideological level, the plan outlined in the 1998 Iraqi Liberation Act is very bold but carefully considered by people who have studied Middle East policy for many years. I would urge anyone who wants to know the truth about our foreign policy in Iraq to Google it and read what was proposed. No, as the libtards will say, it did not spell out plans for an offensive invasion. At that time, the idea was to fund inside groups to overthrow Saddam. But forget about the invasion part and consider what the plan was. It was intended to plant seeds of democracy in the hotbed of extreme radicalism. Changing an ideology with a better ideology.

We will really never know if this plan would have worked. We abandoned Iraq, we abandoned this plan and embarked on a "run away" strategy of the liberal left. Ignore it, forget about it, don't worry about it, let them sort it out on their own... that's been our policy under Obama and Clinton. The result is ISIS.

 

[Socialist]

The formation of ISIS is a combination of many factors, however, the main reason is undoubtedly the American presence and actions in the middle east, and the main reason we are so actively involved in the middle east originates back to the initial involvement after 9/11 and what came after, I don't buy the great man bullshit, one man is not responsible for the formation of a terrorist group, their are so many factors and people involved in the actions that led to the surging rise of ISIS it's intellectually dishonest to point at Bush and blame him, however, I can see why people do that, and it's justified if you follow the great man theory like the majority of the world.

 

[Boss]

The formation of ISIS is a combination of many factors, however, the main reason is undoubtedly the American presence and actions in the middle east, and the main reason we are so actively involved in the middle east originates back to the initial involvement after 9/11 and what came after, I don't buy the great man bullshit, one man is not responsible for the formation of a terrorist group, their are so many factors and people involved in the actions that led to the surging rise of ISIS it's intellectually dishonest to point at Bush and blame him, however, I can see why people do that, and it's justified if you follow the great man theory like the majority of the world.

Nope. This ALL far PRE-DATES 9/11. The tracks of radical Islamic fundamentalism can be traced back to 1978-79 and the fall of the Shah followed by the Iranian Hostage crisis. Now I don't know about the Shah or what we were supposed to do about the Shah, but I don't think Jimmy Carter did either, and so we allowed Iran to become religiously radicalized under Ayatollah Khomeini. This is where our problems started.

All through the Reagan years, people like Oliver North were warning us about the threat of radical Islam. It finally hit home on 9-11 that we had a major problem. From there, Bush attempted to wage war on a flag-less enemy without a uniform or nation state. At the time, I said this was a stupid idea, we should have Congress declare an 'act of war' on all nations supporting radical terrorists.

But we've done whatever we've done and it's not been consistent. So now the radical element we've been at war with for 35 years is stronger than ever. At some point we will collectively wake up and realize we have to defeat this enemy or be defeated. Bush thought we were at that point but we weren't.

 

[Socialist]

The formation of ISIS is a combination of many factors, however, the main reason is undoubtedly the American presence and actions in the middle east, and the main reason we are so actively involved in the middle east originates back to the initial involvement after 9/11 and what came after, I don't buy the great man bullshit, one man is not responsible for the formation of a terrorist group, their are so many factors and people involved in the actions that led to the surging rise of ISIS it's intellectually dishonest to point at Bush and blame him, however, I can see why people do that, and it's justified if you follow the great man theory like the majority of the world.

Nope. This ALL far PRE-DATES 9/11. The tracks of radical Islamic fundamentalism can be traced back to 1978-79 and the fall of the Shah followed by the Iranian Hostage crisis. Now I don't know about the Shah or what we were supposed to do about the Shah, but I don't think Jimmy Carter did either, and so we allowed Iran to become religiously radicalized under Ayatollah Khomeini. This is where our problems started.

All through the Reagan years, people like Oliver North were warning us about the threat of radical Islam. It finally hit home on 9-11 that we had a major problem. From there, Bush attempted to wage war on a flag-less enemy without a uniform or nation state. At the time, I said this was a stupid idea, we should have Congress declare an 'act of war' on all nations supporting radical terrorists.

But we've done whatever we've done and it's not been consistent. So now the radical element we've been at war with for 35 years is stronger than ever. At some point we will collectively wake up and realize we have to defeat this enemy or be defeated. Bush thought we were at that point but we weren't.

You can't defeat an idea, and the american war machine is simply fueling the fire for terrorist groups to rise up with the killing of civilians and the fear being instilled into the middle eastern people.

 

[Faun]

Exactly how retarded are you? You didn't give a year?? You said it was "a year before" 2001. You should check again because the year before 2001 was 2000.

You misinterpreted. I said Bush pussyfooted around with the UN for nearly a year before going into Iraq. Part of the intelligence Colin Powell submitted to the UN was the meeting between the Iraqi defense minister and OBL, and I don't recall what year it happened.

I misrepresenting nothing. You said an Iraqi government official met with Osama bin Laden a year before 9.11. That would be in 2000. I can only go by what you say since no one other than you is making that ludicrous claim. And while watching you back pedal now is quite amusing because you got called out for spewing such idiocy, for you to deny saying that proves to me you're either lying, a raving lunatic, or a combination thereof.

But here is a direct quote from you saying what you now deny saying...

"He sent Fauriq Haziz to Afghanistan to meet with OBL a year before 9-11." - Boss​

... now then, tell me again how you said nothing about the year 2000 or how I misrepresented what you said.

Like I said earlier, you have no ******* clue about that of which you speak. You prove that time and time again.

You caught an error and I apologize for the mistake. That's all I can do. The meeting took place sometime before we invaded Iraq. If you don't believe evidence exists of such a meeting, you are a fool who has been brainwashed. The same goes for terrorist training camps in northern Iraq and the transport of chem/bio WMD technology and materials to Syria.

You don't know the guy's name .... you don't know when he was there ... you don't know why he was there .... and you choose to ignore the findings of the bipartisan 9.11 Commission which, after investigating purported links between Iraq and Al-Qaeda, concluded ...

Bush Defends Assertions of Iraq-Al Qaeda Relationship

The panel's staff reported on Wednesday that there were contacts between Iraq and al Qaeda, "but they do not appear to have resulted in a collaborative relationship."​

 

[Boss]

Exactly how retarded are you? You didn't give a year?? You said it was "a year before" 2001. You should check again because the year before 2001 was 2000.

You misinterpreted. I said Bush pussyfooted around with the UN for nearly a year before going into Iraq. Part of the intelligence Colin Powell submitted to the UN was the meeting between the Iraqi defense minister and OBL, and I don't recall what year it happened.

I misrepresenting nothing. You said an Iraqi government official met with Osama bin Laden a year before 9.11. That would be in 2000. I can only go by what you say since no one other than you is making that ludicrous claim. And while watching you back pedal now is quite amusing because you got called out for spewing such idiocy, for you to deny saying that proves to me you're either lying, a raving lunatic, or a combination thereof.

But here is a direct quote from you saying what you now deny saying...

"He sent Fauriq Haziz to Afghanistan to meet with OBL a year before 9-11." - Boss​

... now then, tell me again how you said nothing about the year 2000 or how I misrepresented what you said.

Like I said earlier, you have no ******* clue about that of which you speak. You prove that time and time again.

You caught an error and I apologize for the mistake. That's all I can do. The meeting took place sometime before we invaded Iraq. If you don't believe evidence exists of such a meeting, you are a fool who has been brainwashed. The same goes for terrorist training camps in northern Iraq and the transport of chem/bio WMD technology and materials to Syria.

You don't know the guy's name .... you don't know when he was there ... you don't know why he was there .... and you choose to ignore the findings of the bipartisan 9.11 Commission which, after investigating purported links between Iraq and Al-Qaeda, concluded ...

Bush Defends Assertions of Iraq-Al Qaeda Relationship

The panel's staff reported on Wednesday that there were contacts between Iraq and al Qaeda, "but they do not appear to have resulted in a collaborative relationship."​

Yes... they were sharing cookie recipes and planning a future soccer match!

I made the statement that Iraq officials met with alQaeda officials and that statement is TRUE according to the source you've posted. I don't really give two ***** what a bunch of politicians decided was or wasn't "collaborative" about the relationship.

 

[Boss]

The formation of ISIS is a combination of many factors, however, the main reason is undoubtedly the American presence and actions in the middle east, and the main reason we are so actively involved in the middle east originates back to the initial involvement after 9/11 and what came after, I don't buy the great man bullshit, one man is not responsible for the formation of a terrorist group, their are so many factors and people involved in the actions that led to the surging rise of ISIS it's intellectually dishonest to point at Bush and blame him, however, I can see why people do that, and it's justified if you follow the great man theory like the majority of the world.

Nope. This ALL far PRE-DATES 9/11. The tracks of radical Islamic fundamentalism can be traced back to 1978-79 and the fall of the Shah followed by the Iranian Hostage crisis. Now I don't know about the Shah or what we were supposed to do about the Shah, but I don't think Jimmy Carter did either, and so we allowed Iran to become religiously radicalized under Ayatollah Khomeini. This is where our problems started.

All through the Reagan years, people like Oliver North were warning us about the threat of radical Islam. It finally hit home on 9-11 that we had a major problem. From there, Bush attempted to wage war on a flag-less enemy without a uniform or nation state. At the time, I said this was a stupid idea, we should have Congress declare an 'act of war' on all nations supporting radical terrorists.

But we've done whatever we've done and it's not been consistent. So now the radical element we've been at war with for 35 years is stronger than ever. At some point we will collectively wake up and realize we have to defeat this enemy or be defeated. Bush thought we were at that point but we weren't.

You can't defeat an idea, and the american war machine is simply fueling the fire for terrorist groups to rise up with the killing of civilians and the fear being instilled into the middle eastern people.

Well no, you can defeat an ideology with a better ideology... humans have been doing this for years.

Terrorists don't give a shit about civilians dying, they are terrorists! They will use civilians to inflict more terror by killing them! It's laughable that someone is such a moron to think that the terrorists are mad because WE keep on killing innocent people.

And for the record, the Iraq War was probably one of the most considerate (from our perspective) of civilian populations of any war in history. It was the whole reason Bush put boots on the ground as opposed to bombing them into oblivion with cruise missiles.

But let's be clear, I am not a Bush fan. I think Bush screwed up with Iraq. Not in the invasion, but in the lead-up to the war.

 

[Socialist]

The formation of ISIS is a combination of many factors, however, the main reason is undoubtedly the American presence and actions in the middle east, and the main reason we are so actively involved in the middle east originates back to the initial involvement after 9/11 and what came after, I don't buy the great man bullshit, one man is not responsible for the formation of a terrorist group, their are so many factors and people involved in the actions that led to the surging rise of ISIS it's intellectually dishonest to point at Bush and blame him, however, I can see why people do that, and it's justified if you follow the great man theory like the majority of the world.

Nope. This ALL far PRE-DATES 9/11. The tracks of radical Islamic fundamentalism can be traced back to 1978-79 and the fall of the Shah followed by the Iranian Hostage crisis. Now I don't know about the Shah or what we were supposed to do about the Shah, but I don't think Jimmy Carter did either, and so we allowed Iran to become religiously radicalized under Ayatollah Khomeini. This is where our problems started.

All through the Reagan years, people like Oliver North were warning us about the threat of radical Islam. It finally hit home on 9-11 that we had a major problem. From there, Bush attempted to wage war on a flag-less enemy without a uniform or nation state. At the time, I said this was a stupid idea, we should have Congress declare an 'act of war' on all nations supporting radical terrorists.

But we've done whatever we've done and it's not been consistent. So now the radical element we've been at war with for 35 years is stronger than ever. At some point we will collectively wake up and realize we have to defeat this enemy or be defeated. Bush thought we were at that point but we weren't.

You can't defeat an idea, and the american war machine is simply fueling the fire for terrorist groups to rise up with the killing of civilians and the fear being instilled into the middle eastern people.

Well no, you can defeat an ideology with a better ideology... humans have been doing this for years.

Terrorists don't give a shit about civilians dying, they are terrorists! They will use civilians to inflict more terror by killing them! It's laughable that someone is such a moron to think that the terrorists are mad because WE keep on killing innocent people.

And for the record, the Iraq War was probably one of the most considerate (from our perspective) of civilian populations of any war in history. It was the whole reason Bush put boots on the ground as opposed to bombing them into oblivion with cruise missiles.

But let's be clear, I am not a Bush fan. I think Bush screwed up with Iraq. Not in the invasion, but in the lead-up to the war.

I'm talking about how terrorist groups recruit people, many are drawn to these groups after experiencing american imperialism.

 

[Boss]

I'm talking about how terrorist groups recruit people, many are drawn to these groups after experiencing american imperialism.

Well in the simplest of senses you are correct but it's more about religious radicalism than American imperialism. They don't trust us because they see us no differently than secular monarchs and dictators except that we lie more. They believe the only way to true happiness is through their religion and the radical religious teachings of their religious leaders. They don't believe in a democracy, it is corrupt and leads to further corruption of the people, or so they believe. They really have no other frame of reference other than their own radical propaganda. They certainly reject freedom of religion, everyone MUST follow Islam and the radical fundamentalist variety.

 

[JoeB131]

About to reduce Boss to a smoking hole in the ground.

It doesn't say that. The "half-assed invason" was voted on and approved by congress. Even if you maintain they were 'fooled' into it somehow, they had plenty of chances to stop any impending action on the part of the president. They also had full authority to suspend funding on any aspect of said plan. To pretend congress had no role and sat helpless while Bush waged war on Iraq is ignorant of how government operates in this country. It's no wonder you're an idiot liberal.

I think that Congress acted in a cowardly manner, there's no doubt about that. And no love for the Democrats, who retained Joe Leiberman (who kept spouting the Zionist line) but threw out Linc Chafee, who was the only Republican to know we were being sold a bill of goods.

But at the end of the day, it was Bush who ordered the invasion, not Congress. It was Bush who ignored his generals. It was Bush who squandered billions in Halliburton profiteering while soldiers went into battle with inadequate armor. It was Bush who allowed torture and things like Abu Grahib that alienated the Iraqi People.

Yeah... they had to provide security for the relentless and persistent death threats to anyone who dared to show up. Bodyguards for the candidates who had many death threats, some successful.... They had to provide security for the polling precincts from suicide bombers and other fundie radicals wanting to disrupt democracy. Observers from 23 coalition nations and the US ensured fair and impartial elections.

Again, so what? An election where we picked the candidates isn't an election. It was like Vietnam, where they had elections, but no one felt really terribly inclined to fight for the Saigon Regime.

Same thing here. We handpicked Maliki, had a sham election where most Iraqis didn't really want him, but he got into power anyway, and then he preceded to **** it up.

But hey, bud... In your little fucked up world, if you want to honestly believe that some people don't want freedom and would rather live under a tyrant dictator instead, be my guest! I can't join you in that fantasy. I believe most people want liberty and freedom.

Most people don't want to be bombed, raped, shot, have a lack of electricity and clean water. Most Iraqis would LOVE to have their lives from 2002 back. I'd like to have my life from 2000 back before Bush fucked everything up

The problem with our ME policy is that we've not been consistent in anything but protecting current American political interests. We haven't tried to solve problems or find resolutions, we can't be depended on... we say one thing and do another. Well tell this group we'll support you and help you win the battle and then we abandon them when they put it all on the line. We've done it over and over to them and they know we'll do it again, we always do. In the end, we protect our own political interests first --and **** them-- **** what we said or promised-- doesn't matter.

Actually, if we were protecting OUR interests, we'd stay the **** out of there. What we do is protect the interests of the Oil Companies and the Zionists. ANd its' transparent that's what we are doing, which is why most Muslims aren't going along with us.

On an ideological level, the plan outlined in the 1998 Iraqi Liberation Act is very bold but carefully considered by people who have studied Middle East policy for many years. I would urge anyone who wants to know the truth about our foreign policy in Iraq to Google it and read what was proposed. No, as the libtards will say, it did not spell out plans for an offensive invasion. At that time, the idea was to fund inside groups to overthrow Saddam. But forget about the invasion part and consider what the plan was. It was intended to plant seeds of democracy in the hotbed of extreme radicalism. Changing an ideology with a better ideology.

Meh, bullshit. Frankly, most times when you overthrow a government from the inside, you usually end up with something worse, because the worst elements usually rise to the top, and they don't know how to keep the lights on or the trains running on time. The fact was, most of the people who were trying to overthrow Saddam in 1998 were just a bad as he was.

We will really never know if this plan would have worked. We abandoned Iraq, we abandoned this plan and embarked on a "run away" strategy of the liberal left. Ignore it, forget about it, don't worry about it, let them sort it out on their own... that's been our policy under Obama and Clinton. The result is ISIS.

Guy, no, ISIS happened because we overthrew Saddam and put Maliki- a man who had lived in Exile in IRan under Saddam - in charge. So Iraqi Sunnis, who have enjoyed political dominance in Iraq since the country was created, now had no political power. THAT'S why you have ISIS and before that, the Sunni Insurgency.

And it's exactly what Bush-41 predicted would happen when he justified why he didn't go to Baghdad in 1991

 

[Claudette]

I don't make a habit out of reading left-wing rants online but every now and then something will emerge that catches my attention. Mostly because it keeps being repeated in the echo chamber of liberal America and eventually the meme pops up on your Facebook page. Apparently, one of the latest memes from Liberalmania is that Bush caused ISIS.

I get it... Bush started the Iraq War and created a destabilization by toppling Saddam and ISIS has filled the void. But this completely disregards what went down and what we were told by the people in the know back then. Those of us who supported the War in Iraq and the War on Terror, made it adamantly clear that our reasoning was simple, we kill them NOW instead of dealing with them later.

You were repeatedly warned of the dangers in ignoring the threat of radical Islamic terrorism, and you would have no part of it. Nothing was going to do until you ended the war and destroyed Bush. So we abandoned the War on Terror, we abandoned the few people over there who were helping us build democracy and restore peace, and we moved toward your policies of appeasement and diplomacy. Now we're paying the price for not eliminating the threat when we had the chance.

Where are the WMDs? Well it turns out they were in Syria, where Saddam's WMD technology is currently being deployed. Actual chem/bio weapons have short shelf life, but the technology is what was important and it all went to Syria.

Radical Islam is not a joke. It wasn't something to take lightly. It certainly wasn't something that should have been turned into a political football for the purpose of bringing down a president. But.... that's our history in this country! We are constantly following the liberal heart and then having to pay the price in the end with more loss of life and greater wars.

Of course he did. Where ya been. He's behind every bad thing that's happened in this country for decades.

Just ask the Obama supporters.

 

[Mac1958]

The invasion of Iraq and removal of Saddam greatly emboldened Iran and set off a chain reaction. Just as many had predicted.

We can pretend that isn't the case, but it is.

We just keep meddling.

.

 

[Boss]

About to reduce Boss to a smoking hole in the ground.

It doesn't say that. The "half-assed invason" was voted on and approved by congress. Even if you maintain they were 'fooled' into it somehow, they had plenty of chances to stop any impending action on the part of the president. They also had full authority to suspend funding on any aspect of said plan. To pretend congress had no role and sat helpless while Bush waged war on Iraq is ignorant of how government operates in this country. It's no wonder you're an idiot liberal.

I think that Congress acted in a cowardly manner, there's no doubt about that. And no love for the Democrats, who retained Joe Leiberman (who kept spouting the Zionist line) but threw out Linc Chafee, who was the only Republican to know we were being sold a bill of goods.

Wait.. what? Did you just slam Democrats for "throwing out" a Republican losing re-election as a Republican? How the **** does THAT work mate?


Hillary Clinton stood her fat ass up there with everyone voting to go to war with Iraq and you people are slobbering all over yourselves for the chance to elect her! Aside from a few radical liberals who were already scheming and conniving to undermine the war as a political statement, everyone was in favor of invading Iraq.

But at the end of the day, it was Bush who ordered the invasion, not Congress. It was Bush who ignored his generals. It was Bush who squandered billions in Halliburton profiteering while soldiers went into battle with inadequate armor. It was Bush who allowed torture and things like Abu Grahib that alienated the Iraqi People.

Bush didn't do any of this shit, this is the false propaganda perpetrated by the liberal left in their attempts to do anything and everything to undermine the war from BEFORE Day 1!

Yep... Bush ordered the invasion and lived with the consequences. I never argued otherwise. I think he fucked up as soon as he sent Colin Powell to the UN... If the CIA thinks Saddam is an "imminent threat" send in Seal Team Six! Start turning his palaces into rubble from stealth bombers above... make our ******* day-- go Clint Eastwood on his ass! Why piss around with the UN for months and months, why allow sentimental liberal fuckwits who haven't gotten over Vietnam, to gain momentum and undermine everything? Poof-Bang-Done! Case Closed! It ends up being a sidebar story... we eliminated a cockroach in the Middle East!

But no... he couldn't do that. He was all into his 'compassionate' bullshit and didn't listen to his advisers. Powell tried to tell him this and others did too. The worst part of the walk-up to the war was his walk-up to the war. He tried to 'make the case' when he wasn't obligated to do so. He played right in to the leftist liberals who were hell bent to destroy him.

In contrast, Bill Clinton knew how to handle his nutjob base... you don't give 'em time to organize protests, you ******* bomb Saddam to the stone ages with cruise missiles..... (like we did just a few months before Bush took office.) You don't need permission from the UN or the liberal left.

Yeah... they had to provide security for the relentless and persistent death threats to anyone who dared to show up. Bodyguards for the candidates who had many death threats, some successful.... They had to provide security for the polling precincts from suicide bombers and other fundie radicals wanting to disrupt democracy. Observers from 23 coalition nations and the US ensured fair and impartial elections.

Again, so what? An election where we picked the candidates isn't an election. It was like Vietnam, where they had elections, but no one felt really terribly inclined to fight for the Saigon Regime.

We didn't pick their candidates. They held community forums and nominated people they wanted to run for office. It's totally unlike Vietnam in EVERY way... the South Vietnamese already HAD a functional government, we didn't have anything to do with that. They were fighting for independence from the North. Here, we are helping ALL the people establish the first democracy ever in an Arab country. Totally different ball of wax.

Same thing here. We handpicked Maliki, had a sham election where most Iraqis didn't really want him, but he got into power anyway, and then he preceded to **** it up.

We didn't "hand pick" anyone, the people voted in elections... did you miss the pictures of all the purple thumbs? They had a series of elections, primaries followed by general elections just like we have here. Maliki won by a significant amount. Of course we backed the popularly-elected president, who the **** were we supposed to support? Some ousted Ba'ath Party crony of Saddam? Or maybe to show no hard feelings from 9-11 we should've supported the Hamas candidate?

No... Maliki became "our hand picked" when the leftists needed another meme to undermine the war.

Most people don't want to be bombed, raped, shot, have a lack of electricity and clean water. Most Iraqis would LOVE to have their lives from 2002 back. I'd like to have my life from 2000 back before Bush fucked everything up

The difference in you and I is, I know people from Iraq. You don't speak for them. Back in 1812 when some people watched our Capitol burn to the ground, probably wished they had never revolted against the mighty British. I can't speak for cowards who had rather stick their heads in the sand and go along to get along... I always preferred freedom and I think most people do.

I'm sorry Bush fucked your life up too... but I am even more sorry Bush seems to have fucked up the entire universe and we can no longer have civil political discourse because everything reverts back to blaming Bush. Once was a time (Pre-Bush) where the two sides could sometimes come together and do something great in principle for the people.

Actually, if we were protecting OUR interests, we'd stay the **** out of there. What we do is protect the interests of the Oil Companies and the Zionists. ANd its' transparent that's what we are doing, which is why most Muslims aren't going along with us.

You sound like a racist Jew-hating moron spewing what you've heard on some Anti-Semitic message board. Oil is a legitimate US interest, we can't do a ******* thing about that unless we're going to drill for more here. We don't have the option to disregard their oil so we can't "stay the **** out of there."

It's not about the oil companies, it's about oil being a vital and essential resource this nation depends on. It's not about "Zionists" (aka: Jews)... that's just plain bigoted horse shit and everyone knows it.

What most RADICAL Muslims (and most of them are over there) "don't like us for" is our heathenish, godless, sexualized, debased and glorified western culture. They don't want their daughters dressing like whores and corrupted. They think we are infidels! Do you comprehend that word or do you need to look it up? They think the people should be ruled by a religious leader who enforces Sharia Law on the masses because we can't behave ourselves otherwise. Homos need to be stoned to death, women need to be horribly disfigured for disobeying men. That's what they believe and what they want, and they want this for the whole world as a matter of their own prophecy.

On an ideological level, the plan outlined in the 1998 Iraqi Liberation Act is very bold but carefully considered by people who have studied Middle East policy for many years. I would urge anyone who wants to know the truth about our foreign policy in Iraq to Google it and read what was proposed. No, as the libtards will say, it did not spell out plans for an offensive invasion. At that time, the idea was to fund inside groups to overthrow Saddam. But forget about the invasion part and consider what the plan was. It was intended to plant seeds of democracy in the hotbed of extreme radicalism. Changing an ideology with a better ideology.

Meh, bullshit. Frankly, most times when you overthrow a government from the inside, you usually end up with something worse, because the worst elements usually rise to the top, and they don't know how to keep the lights on or the trains running on time. The fact was, most of the people who were trying to overthrow Saddam in 1998 were just a bad as he was.

Well, you can disagree with the policy but it's not "bullshit" ...it was carefully deliberated in 1998 and passed overwhelmingly. The people we actively supported at the time were the Kurds. They certainly aren't "worse than Saddam" ...he executed 300k of them with poison gas. So again, we see you flailing with nothing but empty and empty-headed left wing rhetoric. It wasn't true back then and it's not true now.

We will really never know if this plan would have worked. We abandoned Iraq, we abandoned this plan and embarked on a "run away" strategy of the liberal left. Ignore it, forget about it, don't worry about it, let them sort it out on their own... that's been our policy under Obama and Clinton. The result is ISIS.

Guy, no, ISIS happened because we overthrew Saddam and put Maliki- a man who had lived in Exile in IRan under Saddam - in charge. So Iraqi Sunnis, who have enjoyed political dominance in Iraq since the country was created, now had no political power. THAT'S why you have ISIS and before that, the Sunni Insurgency.

And it's exactly what Bush-41 predicted would happen when he justified why he didn't go to Baghdad in 1991

That's NOT why ISIS happened. Again... ISIS is almost entirely created as a result of left-wing undermining of the War on Terror and the Bush Doctrine. Had we followed through with our plans, we would have either killed ISIS leaders or kept them contained in Gitmo. If we would have followed "Boss's Plan" ...we'd be discussing when the giant glass fishbowl formerly known as the Middle East would be safe to enter again.

 

[JoeB131]

Wait.. what? Did you just slam Democrats for "throwing out" a Republican losing re-election as a Republican? How the **** does THAT work mate?

It works very simply. I'm not a Democrat. I think the way they used anger against the war against Chafee was kind of contemptable, given he was a stand up guy who opposed the war. But the important thing was gaining control of the Senate, at the end of the day.

Hillary Clinton stood her fat ass up there with everyone voting to go to war with Iraq and you people are slobbering all over yourselves for the chance to elect her! Aside from a few radical liberals who were already scheming and conniving to undermine the war as a political statement, everyone was in favor of invading Iraq.

Well, no, not everyone was. A lot of people were against it... Like Obama.

I'm not looking forward to voting for Hillary, she's just better than the latest member of the Bush Crime Family you are ready to support.

Bush didn't do any of this shit, this is the false propaganda perpetrated by the liberal left in their attempts to do anything and everything to undermine the war from BEFORE Day 1!

Yep... Bush ordered the invasion and lived with the consequences. I never argued otherwise. I think he fucked up as soon as he sent Colin Powell to the UN... If the CIA thinks Saddam is an "imminent threat" send in Seal Team Six! Start turning his palaces into rubble from stealth bombers above... make our ******* day-- go Clint Eastwood on his ass! Why piss around with the UN for months and months, why allow sentimental liberal fuckwits who haven't gotten over Vietnam, to gain momentum and undermine everything? Poof-Bang-Done! Case Closed! It ends up being a sidebar story... we eliminated a cockroach in the Middle East!

Actually, this is the most retarded thing you've said yet. Killing Saddam just would have meant Qusay or Uday or Tariq Aziz is the new leader following the same policies.

The thing is, not every problem has a military solution.

But no... he couldn't do that. He was all into his 'compassionate' bullshit and didn't listen to his advisers. Powell tried to tell him this and others did too. The worst part of the walk-up to the war was his walk-up to the war. He tried to 'make the case' when he wasn't obligated to do so. He played right in to the leftist liberals who were hell bent to destroy him.

In contrast, Bill Clinton knew how to handle his nutjob base... you don't give 'em time to organize protests, you ******* bomb Saddam to the stone ages with cruise missiles..... (like we did just a few months before Bush took office.) You don't need permission from the UN or the liberal left.

But that was the point. Clinton just bombed a few key targets. He didn't go in for "regime change" if the Iraqis weren't willing to do it themselves.

We didn't pick their candidates. They held community forums and nominated people they wanted to run for office. It's totally unlike Vietnam in EVERY way... the South Vietnamese already HAD a functional government, we didn't have anything to do with that. They were fighting for independence from the North. Here, we are helping ALL the people establish the first democracy ever in an Arab country. Totally different ball of wax.

Uh, no, not really. Did Al Qaeda get to run candidates? How about the Ba'ath Party? How about the Al-Sadr party? We allowed them to run candidates WE approved of.

We didn't "hand pick" anyone, the people voted in elections... did you miss the pictures of all the purple thumbs? They had a series of elections, primaries followed by general elections just like we have here. Maliki won by a significant amount. Of course we backed the popularly-elected president, who the **** were we supposed to support? Some ousted Ba'ath Party crony of Saddam? Or maybe to show no hard feelings from 9-11 we should've supported the Hamas candidate?

No... Maliki became "our hand picked" when the leftists needed another meme to undermine the war.

Besides the fact that Maliki lost his second election and purged the Sunnis rather than s hare power, and that he was PRIME MINISTER, not President. Maliki was the guy Bush wanted in there.

The difference in you and I is, I know people from Iraq. You don't speak for them. Back in 1812 when some people watched our Capitol burn to the ground, probably wished they had never revolted against the mighty British. I can't speak for cowards who had rather stick their heads in the sand and go along to get along... I always preferred freedom and I think most people do.

I'm sure there were people who watched the Capitol burn to the ground and said, "You know, Jimmy Madison was an idiot for ******* with the British Empire when Napoleon has already got them in a cranky mood."

And they were right. The War of 1812 was easily the stupidest war we ever fought. Until Iraq, anyway.

I'm sorry Bush fucked your life up too... but I am even more sorry Bush seems to have fucked up the entire universe and we can no longer have civil political discourse because everything reverts back to blaming Bush. Once was a time (Pre-Bush) where the two sides could sometimes come together and do something great in principle for the people.

Really, when was that? What's keeping that from happening now? You have a Republican Party that is fighting against its own ideas because the Black Guy proposed them.

You sound like a racist Jew-hating moron spewing what you've heard on some Anti-Semitic message board. Oil is a legitimate US interest, we can't do a ******* thing about that unless we're going to drill for more here. We don't have the option to disregard their oil so we can't "stay the **** out of there."

Sure we can. besides the fact that less than 13% of our oil comes from that region, we could easily mandate fuel efficiency, invest in public transportation, and do a whole bunch of things where we wouldn't need their oil. But that would cut into the profits of the Koch Brothers, so that ain't happening.

It's not about the oil companies, it's about oil being a vital and essential resource this nation depends on. It's not about "Zionists" (aka: Jews)... that's just plain bigoted horse shit and everyone knows it.

Right. So it's just a coincidence that AIPAC and PNAC and all the other Zionist groups were the ones instigating the loudest to take out Saddam... until it all turned to shit, and poor Dubya was like the kid with the baseball bat and the angry neighbor with a broken window.

What most RADICAL Muslims (and most of them are over there) "don't like us for" is our heathenish, godless, sexualized, debased and glorified western culture. They don't want their daughters dressing like whores and corrupted. They think we are infidels! Do you comprehend that word or do you need to look it up? They think the people should be ruled by a religious leader who enforces Sharia Law on the masses because we can't behave ourselves otherwise. Homos need to be stoned to death, women need to be horribly disfigured for disobeying men. That's what they believe and what they want, and they want this for the whole world as a matter of their own prophecy.

What they don't like us for is us invading their countries. Shit, they weren't attacking us in the 1960's, where the country was a lot more godless, sexualized, heathenistic (are you sure you don't agree with them?) than it is now. We minded our own ******* business and they minded theirs.

Well, you can disagree with the policy but it's not "bullshit" ...it was carefully deliberated in 1998 and passed overwhelmingly. The people we actively supported at the time were the Kurds. They certainly aren't "worse than Saddam" ...he executed 300k of them with poison gas. So again, we see you flailing with nothing but empty and empty-headed left wing rhetoric. It wasn't true back then and it's not true now.

Besides the fact the Kurds were mostly killed with conventional weapons (Which your hero Reagan sold Saddam) and not poison gas (which your hero Reagan also sold Saddam) the point was, at the time this happened. No one cared. There was no international outcry of AVENGE THE KURDS. Because, seriously, **** those guys. When Saddam started threatening the Zionists and Oil Company profits, then he had to go.

That's NOT why ISIS happened. Again... ISIS is almost entirely created as a result of left-wing undermining of the War on Terror and the Bush Doctrine. Had we followed through with our plans, we would have either killed ISIS leaders or kept them contained in Gitmo. If we would have followed "Boss's Plan" ...we'd be discussing when the giant glass fishbowl formerly known as the Middle East would be safe to enter again.

Tell you what, why don't you and every like minded right winger form a volunteer legion to go over there and show us how it's done right.

 

[Boss]

Wait.. what? Did you just slam Democrats for "throwing out" a Republican losing re-election as a Republican? How the **** does THAT work mate?

It works very simply. I'm not a Democrat. I think the way they used anger against the war against Chafee was kind of contemptable, given he was a stand up guy who opposed the war. But the important thing was gaining control of the Senate, at the end of the day.

Well it still doesn't work because you said Democrats threw him out. He's a Republican and he didn't win re-election. The Democrats defeated him.

Hillary Clinton stood her fat ass up there with everyone voting to go to war with Iraq and you people are slobbering all over yourselves for the chance to elect her! Aside from a few radical liberals who were already scheming and conniving to undermine the war as a political statement, everyone was in favor of invading Iraq.

Well, no, not everyone was. A lot of people were against it... Like Obama.

Well no, Obama was one of only a FEW... Remember, we had a vote?

I'm not looking forward to voting for Hillary, she's just better than the latest member of the Bush Crime Family you are ready to support.

Well I won't be supporting a Clinton OR a Bush.

Bush didn't do any of this shit, this is the false propaganda perpetrated by the liberal left in their attempts to do anything and everything to undermine the war from BEFORE Day 1!

Yep... Bush ordered the invasion and lived with the consequences. I never argued otherwise. I think he fucked up as soon as he sent Colin Powell to the UN... If the CIA thinks Saddam is an "imminent threat" send in Seal Team Six! Start turning his palaces into rubble from stealth bombers above... make our ******* day-- go Clint Eastwood on his ass! Why piss around with the UN for months and months, why allow sentimental liberal fuckwits who haven't gotten over Vietnam, to gain momentum and undermine everything? Poof-Bang-Done! Case Closed! It ends up being a sidebar story... we eliminated a cockroach in the Middle East!

Actually, this is the most retarded thing you've said yet. Killing Saddam just would have meant Qusay or Uday or Tariq Aziz is the new leader following the same policies.

The thing is, not every problem has a military solution.

It's okay, we have LOTS of bombs. And I disagree, every problem has a military solution if you're willing to use it. You bomb the sons of bitches until they de-radicalize and come to their senses... eventually, if they want a building left standing, they will capitulate.

But no... he couldn't do that. He was all into his 'compassionate' bullshit and didn't listen to his advisers. Powell tried to tell him this and others did too. The worst part of the walk-up to the war was his walk-up to the war. He tried to 'make the case' when he wasn't obligated to do so. He played right in to the leftist liberals who were hell bent to destroy him.

In contrast, Bill Clinton knew how to handle his nutjob base... you don't give 'em time to organize protests, you ******* bomb Saddam to the stone ages with cruise missiles..... (like we did just a few months before Bush took office.) You don't need permission from the UN or the liberal left.

But that was the point. Clinton just bombed a few key targets. He didn't go in for "regime change" if the Iraqis weren't willing to do it themselves.

We've already established "regime change" was formal US policy since 1998. They couldn't do it by themselves, that should have been apparent when Saddam killed thousands with poison gas.

We didn't pick their candidates. They held community forums and nominated people they wanted to run for office. It's totally unlike Vietnam in EVERY way... the South Vietnamese already HAD a functional government, we didn't have anything to do with that. They were fighting for independence from the North. Here, we are helping ALL the people establish the first democracy ever in an Arab country. Totally different ball of wax.

Uh, no, not really. Did Al Qaeda get to run candidates? How about the Ba'ath Party? How about the Al-Sadr party? We allowed them to run candidates WE approved of.

alQaeda isn't a political party as far as I am aware. They are a terrorist organization. The Ba'ath Party had a candidate and so did Hammas. They lost by a good percentage and they weren't candidates WE selected or "allowed" to run. Do you have any evidence to support these claims or are you repeating more mindless rhetoric?

For the first time in history, Iraq held democratic elections. 80% of the people participated, settling any and all doubts about what they wanted.

Besides the fact that Maliki lost his second election and purged the Sunnis rather than s hare power, and that he was PRIME MINISTER, not President. Maliki was the guy Bush wanted in there.

Again... you ACT as if Bush is supposed to support someone who doesn't want democracy for Iraq! I didn't see Bush over there campaigning for the guy, I don't even think Bush commented on who he supported other than to say it was up to the people of Iraq. Again... any evidence or more rhetoric?

I'm sure there were people who watched the Capitol burn to the ground and said, "You know, Jimmy Madison was an idiot for ******* with the British Empire when Napoleon has already got them in a cranky mood."

And they were right. The War of 1812 was easily the stupidest war we ever fought. Until Iraq, anyway.

Whatever, we WON! We didn't tuck tail and RUN like a bunch of spineless cowards because things got tough.

Really, when was that? What's keeping that from happening now? You have a Republican Party that is fighting against its own ideas because the Black Guy proposed them.

That is such absolute bullshit.

Sure we can. besides the fact that less than 13% of our oil comes from that region, we could easily mandate fuel efficiency, invest in public transportation, and do a whole bunch of things where we wouldn't need their oil. But that would cut into the profits of the Koch Brothers, so that ain't happening.

All you do is spew left wing propaganda out every orifice. Our ******* oil supply comes from the World Oil Market, controlled largely by OPEC. Period. You didn't name anything that we're not already doing... we've had stringent fuel efficiency mandates the past 40 years! We've invested in public transportation on every level! We've poured trillions of taxpayer dollars into "Green Energy!" What ******* planet are you living on, loony lefty?

Right. So it's just a coincidence that AIPAC and PNAC and all the other Zionist groups were the ones instigating the loudest to take out Saddam... until it all turned to shit, and poor Dubya was like the kid with the baseball bat and the angry neighbor with a broken window.

Virtually EVERYBODY ON THE PLANET wanted us to take out Saddam, with the exception of a few dunderhead liberals like YOU!

What they don't like us for is us invading their countries. Shit, they weren't attacking us in the 1960's, where the country was a lot more godless, sexualized, heathenistic (are you sure you don't agree with them?) than it is now. We minded our own ******* business and they minded theirs.

They didn't have the Internet in 1960, nor were the American interests as present all around them. Nor had their Islamic religion become radicalized.

And why are you asking ME if I agree with them, YOU are the one supporting them! Arguing their case! Taking their side! I'm the one who says we need to kill every last one of them and we need to do it NOW!

Tell you what, why don't you and every like minded right winger form a volunteer legion to go over there and show us how it's done right.

Thanks to Progressive such as yourself, the US Government no longer authorizes such mercenary ventures.

 

[JoeB131]

Well it still doesn't work because you said Democrats threw him out. He's a Republican and he didn't win re-election. The Democrats defeated him.

Yes, exactly my point. They didn't target him because he supported the war, they targetted him because he was an easy seat to win.

Well no, Obama was one of only a FEW... Remember, we had a vote?

Yes, we had a vote. And we had triple amputee war veterans being compared to Bin Laden and Saddam in commercials. Bush and Cheney whipped up a bunch of fear, and a lot of people went along with the hysteria.

It's okay, we have LOTS of bombs. And I disagree, every problem has a military solution if you're willing to use it. You bomb the sons of bitches until they de-radicalize and come to their senses... eventually, if they want a building left standing, they will capitulate.

We've been bombing Iraq for 25 years now. If anything, they are more radical than when Reagan thought Saddam was a nifty guy.

We've already established "regime change" was formal US policy since 1998. They couldn't do it by themselves, that should have been apparent when Saddam killed thousands with poison gas.

Then **** them.

alQaeda isn't a political party as far as I am aware. They are a terrorist organization. The Ba'ath Party had a candidate and so did Hammas. They lost by a good percentage and they weren't candidates WE selected or "allowed" to run. Do you have any evidence to support these claims or are you repeating more mindless rhetoric?

For the first time in history, Iraq held democratic elections. 80% of the people participated, settling any and all doubts about what they wanted.

The Ba'ath Party was banned, and worse, Ba'ath party officials were banned from government thanks to Bush and Cheney,w hich just contributed to the Chaos. The Purple finger election was a sham.

Again... you ACT as if Bush is supposed to support someone who doesn't want democracy for Iraq! I didn't see Bush over there campaigning for the guy, I don't even think Bush commented on who he supported other than to say it was up to the people of Iraq. Again... any evidence or more rhetoric?

Yawn, Maliki was Bush's hand picked guy, and he fucked it up. Own it.

Whatever, we WON! We didn't tuck tail and RUN like a bunch of spineless cowards because things got tough.

Uh, actually, we did. The purpose of the War of 1812 was to seize Canada from the British Empire when they were pre-occuppied with Napoleon. Besides the fact we lost EVERY FREAKING BATTLE, we signed a rather humiliating treaty at Ghent conceding almost every point of the War to the British, who were about to unleash and extra large case of whoop-ass after Napoleon went to Elba in 1814. The only bright spot was that Jackson kept the Brits from burning New Orleans, but the war was already over, they just hadn't heard yet.

All you do is spew left wing propaganda out every orifice. Our ******* oil supply comes from the World Oil Market, controlled largely by OPEC. Period. You didn't name anything that we're not already doing... we've had stringent fuel efficiency mandates the past 40 years! We've invested in public transportation on every level! We've poured trillions of taxpayer dollars into "Green Energy!" What ******* planet are you living on, loony lefty?

We aren't doing any of those things enough. The government put out COLA standards, the Auto Industry started marketing SUV's.

Virtually EVERYBODY ON THE PLANET wanted us to take out Saddam, with the exception of a few dunderhead liberals like YOU!

Uh, no, they didn't. IN fact, most of the world told us taking out Saddam was a terrible idea.

And they were right.

They didn't have the Internet in 1960, nor were the American interests as present all around them. Nor had their Islamic religion become radicalized.

And why are you asking ME if I agree with them, YOU are the one supporting them! Arguing their case! Taking their side! I'm the one who says we need to kill every last one of them and we need to do it NOW!

Right. YOu are saying we need to kill all of them. The radicals say they need to kill all of us. They want to appease their imaginary sky pixie, you want to appease your imaginary sky pixie. You are too sides of the same coin.

Thanks to Progressive such as yourself, the US Government no longer authorizes such mercenary ventures.

Why are you waiting for permission? All you guys need to do is renounce your citizenship, and go start a brigade to go over there. Bill Krystol can be your Colonel. It would be totally awesome.

 

[Boss]

Well it still doesn't work because you said Democrats threw him out. He's a Republican and he didn't win re-election. The Democrats defeated him.

Yes, exactly my point. They didn't target him because he supported the war, they targetted him because he was an easy seat to win.

You're not even making any sense... I think it's caused from all the spinning. Chaffey was a Republican who didn't support the war. He lost his bid for re-election to a Democrat. Democrats don't choose seats to run for, they run candidates in all the races.

Well no, Obama was one of only a FEW... Remember, we had a vote?

Yes, we had a vote. And we had triple amputee war veterans being compared to Bin Laden and Saddam in commercials. Bush and Cheney whipped up a bunch of fear, and a lot of people went along with the hysteria.

And this is when your bullshit rhetoric comes back to bite you in the ass... the MAIN THING they warned you about is now a reality in ISIS! That's what this thread is about... the irony of you blaming Bush for ISIS when it was actually Bush who warned you of ISIS and you claimed he was whipping up fear and hysteria.

It's okay, we have LOTS of bombs. And I disagree, every problem has a military solution if you're willing to use it. You bomb the sons of bitches until they de-radicalize and come to their senses... eventually, if they want a building left standing, they will capitulate.

We've been bombing Iraq for 25 years now. If anything, they are more radical than when Reagan thought Saddam was a nifty guy.

Well no, we haven't been bombing Iraq for 25 years. Reagan didn't think Saddam was a nifty guy, he just wasn't keen on having radical Islam take over Iraq. Radical elements have been streaming into Iraq since 2001 and liberals won't allow us to kill them.

We've already established "regime change" was formal US policy since 1998. They couldn't do it by themselves, that should have been apparent when Saddam killed thousands with poison gas.

Then **** them.

Yes... the Liberal Mantra... **** them if they aren't a Liberal!

The Ba'ath Party was banned, and worse, Ba'ath party officials were banned from government thanks to Bush and Cheney,w hich just contributed to the Chaos. The Purple finger election was a sham.

No, the Ba'ath party was not banned, the couldn't win elections. The only people who claimed the elections were a sham were the radical Islamic terrorists... So again, it appears you are on their side.

Yawn, Maliki was Bush's hand picked guy, and he fucked it up. Own it.

Well again, no he wasn't and this is left-wing (and terrorist) propaganda.

We aren't doing any of those things enough. The government put out COLA standards, the Auto Industry started marketing SUV's.

According to the liberal left we aren't doing anything enough! That's what you people do! You scream, cry, protest and lobby for liberal social entitlement and then you ***** that it's "not enough" when it doesn't solve the problem. Then you proceed to argue in manic circles about things you know nothing about other than propaganda you've been spoon fed by your masters.

We've been putting up with your shit for over 100 years! You won't listen to anybody, you all decide you're going to march in lockstep for your "cause" and you won't listen to reason. You lie, twist and distort facts until you eventually get whatever you want and then when it doesn't work or is a miserable failure like it was predicted, you either blame it on Republicans or claim we didn't do enough.

You made the statement that we could be independent from foreign oil by implementing fuel efficiency standards and funding public transportation... but we are already doing those things and have been doing them for some time. Your problem is, you live in some Utopian Liberal Universe where Liberal ideas will solve all the problems of the world if it weren't for the mean old Republicans thwarting your Superman attempts to save the planet.

Uh, no, they didn't. IN fact, most of the world told us taking out Saddam was a terrible idea.

And they were right.

Wrong, and the few who opposed it were wrong.

Right. YOu are saying we need to kill all of them. The radicals say they need to kill all of us. They want to appease their imaginary sky pixie, you want to appease your imaginary sky pixie. You are too sides of the same coin.

Well no.. I am saying we need to be killing people who are religiously committed to our extermination. It has nothing to do with God. You're their buddy because you have so much in common... they are radicals, they hate Christians and Jews, they hate democracy and American capitalism.

Why are you waiting for permission? All you guys need to do is renounce your citizenship, and go start a brigade to go over there. Bill Krystol can be your Colonel. It would be totally awesome.

Why would I want to renounce my citizenship then go fight for my country? That makes not a damn bit of sense whatsoever... par for the course with you.

No, the US Military is authorized under the Constitution and is controlled by the Congress and President. When an issue arises where military force is needed, the Congress votes... as they did with Iraq.