"Trump Puts US in Club of One"

[Bush92]

How much did the deficit grow under Obama's Presidency asshole?

The deficit dropped under Obama

WTF...rolling. Completely false statement.

The deficit was cut by over half by President Obama

The fact that you hate to admit it does not make it false

Link

Read it and weep Skippy

budget deficit by president graph

 

[Old Rocks]

By God, the treasonous fat senile old orange clown has certainly put us in a club of one. The only nation in the world that has installed a leader with the help of an adversarial nation. So Russia has some real 'oweme's' on the fat old clown. And it shows.

I imagine that you are so proud of Trump Jr. having that former Russian intelligence agent in the meeting that he denied having at first. But you, Bush92, are proud of you treason to this nation.

 

[rightwinger]

The deficit dropped under Obama

WTF...rolling. Completely false statement.

The deficit was cut by over half by President Obama

The fact that you hate to admit it does not make it false

Link

Read it and weep Skippy

budget deficit by president graph

Sorry Skippy....anyway you look at it the deficit dropped by more than half under President Obama
Just because you don't like it doesn't mean it didn't happen
The numbers in the graph are real

You are welcome to provide any information that shows your claim

 

[Bush92]

Excellent! Just the way it should be. I am not an "earthling " I am an "American." The rest of the world has been taking advantage of us for years now. As Dr. Gorka says, "We are not a superpower. We are a hyperpower." Tell Merkel, Trudeau, and the rest of these socialist that it's our way or the highway.
Donald Trump puts US in a club of one - CNNPolitics.com

The rest of the world has been taking advantage of the US for years? What nonsense. The US has been taking advantage of the rest of the world for years more like.

Go look up what the World Bank's been getting up to, for starters.

The United States is the defender of the free world. Go to a Veterans cemetery sometime asshole.

Bullshit.

The US is the defender of the US's interests. Not only is this true, but I can PROVE IT.

It's called the Powell Doctrine, made by Colin Powell.

Powell Doctrine - Wikipedia

1. Is a vital national security interest threatened?
2. Do we have a clear attainable objective?
3. Have the risks and costs been fully and frankly analyzed?
4. Have all other non-violent policy means been fully exhausted?
5. Is there a plausible exit strategy to avoid endless entanglement?
6. Have the consequences of our action been fully considered?
7. Is the action supported by the American people?
8. Do we have genuine broad international support?[2]

This is why the US will go to war, not because of other stuff.

1) Is National Security threatened? In Rwanda national security was not threatened. No war.
In Iraq national security, ie, OIL was threatened, war. Same in Libya, both are OPEC nations. Go figure. Afghanistan there was al Qaeda and other stuff potentially connected to profits in other Muslim countries.

Is action supported by the people. You can tell when the US wants to go to war, the media is full of pumping stories into people's heads. All these stories about how bad Iran is, but nothing about Saudi Arabia, oh, please.

The US is actually one of the biggest, if not THE biggest threat to global security in the world.

2002 there was the Coup d'etat against the democratically elected leader of Venezuela. Love democracy by getting rid of democratically elected leaders??? I mean, give me a break.

The US only goes in when its interests are at play, in the last 20 years that basically means OPEC or a few other side shows.

Powell was sec of state under bush, and we didn't follow his "policy" even when he was around, certainly had no weight the moment his ass left the office.

THat you would post that as "evidence" is pathetic.

Ohhhh. I see. The last 20 years. Now you want to move the goal line. Well I saw the bodies of all the people Saddam's Republican Guard murdered and raped in various cities. We liberated a people and stabilized global oil market and also global economy. That helped the world.

 

[Bush92]

WTF...rolling. Completely false statement.

The deficit was cut by over half by President Obama

The fact that you hate to admit it does not make it false

Link

Read it and weep Skippy

budget deficit by president graph

Sorry Skippy....anyway you look at it the deficit dropped by more than half under President Obama
Just because you don't like it doesn't mean it didn't happen
The numbers in the graph are real

You are welcome to provide any information that shows your claim

Deficit champion: Barry Sotoro!
Which United States Presidents have run the largest budget deficits?

 

[rightwinger]

Excellent! Just the way it should be. I am not an "earthling " I am an "American." The rest of the world has been taking advantage of us for years now. As Dr. Gorka says, "We are not a superpower. We are a hyperpower." Tell Merkel, Trudeau, and the rest of these socialist that it's our way or the highway.
Donald Trump puts US in a club of one - CNNPolitics.com

The rest of the world has been taking advantage of the US for years? What nonsense. The US has been taking advantage of the rest of the world for years more like.

Go look up what the World Bank's been getting up to, for starters.

The United States is the defender of the free world. Go to a Veterans cemetery sometime asshole.

Bullshit.

The US is the defender of the US's interests. Not only is this true, but I can PROVE IT.

It's called the Powell Doctrine, made by Colin Powell.

Powell Doctrine - Wikipedia

1. Is a vital national security interest threatened?
2. Do we have a clear attainable objective?
3. Have the risks and costs been fully and frankly analyzed?
4. Have all other non-violent policy means been fully exhausted?
5. Is there a plausible exit strategy to avoid endless entanglement?
6. Have the consequences of our action been fully considered?
7. Is the action supported by the American people?
8. Do we have genuine broad international support?[2]

This is why the US will go to war, not because of other stuff.

1) Is National Security threatened? In Rwanda national security was not threatened. No war.
In Iraq national security, ie, OIL was threatened, war. Same in Libya, both are OPEC nations. Go figure. Afghanistan there was al Qaeda and other stuff potentially connected to profits in other Muslim countries.

Is action supported by the people. You can tell when the US wants to go to war, the media is full of pumping stories into people's heads. All these stories about how bad Iran is, but nothing about Saudi Arabia, oh, please.

The US is actually one of the biggest, if not THE biggest threat to global security in the world.

2002 there was the Coup d'etat against the democratically elected leader of Venezuela. Love democracy by getting rid of democratically elected leaders??? I mean, give me a break.

The US only goes in when its interests are at play, in the last 20 years that basically means OPEC or a few other side shows.

Powell was sec of state under bush, and we didn't follow his "policy" even when he was around, certainly had no weight the moment his ass left the office.

THat you would post that as "evidence" is pathetic.

Ohhhh. I see. The last 20 years. Now you want to move the goal line. Well I saw the bodies of all the people Saddam's Republican Guard murdered and raped in various cities. We liberated a people and stabilized global oil market and also global economy. That helped the world.

200,000 killed in George Bush's cluster ****

He also destabilized the region leading to hundreds of thousands of more deaths

Mission Accomplished

 

[rightwinger]

The deficit was cut by over half by President Obama

The fact that you hate to admit it does not make it false

Link

Read it and weep Skippy

budget deficit by president graph

Sorry Skippy....anyway you look at it the deficit dropped by more than half under President Obama
Just because you don't like it doesn't mean it didn't happen
The numbers in the graph are real

You are welcome to provide any information that shows your claim

Deficit champion: Barry Sotoro!
Which United States Presidents have run the largest budget deficits?

Can I play the game too?

President Obama lowered the deficit by almost a trillion dollars
More than any President in history

 

[frigidweirdo]

Excellent! Just the way it should be. I am not an "earthling " I am an "American." The rest of the world has been taking advantage of us for years now. As Dr. Gorka says, "We are not a superpower. We are a hyperpower." Tell Merkel, Trudeau, and the rest of these socialist that it's our way or the highway.
Donald Trump puts US in a club of one - CNNPolitics.com

The rest of the world has been taking advantage of the US for years? What nonsense. The US has been taking advantage of the rest of the world for years more like.

Go look up what the World Bank's been getting up to, for starters.

The United States is the defender of the free world. Go to a Veterans cemetery sometime asshole.

Bullshit.

The US is the defender of the US's interests. Not only is this true, but I can PROVE IT.

It's called the Powell Doctrine, made by Colin Powell.

Powell Doctrine - Wikipedia

1. Is a vital national security interest threatened?
2. Do we have a clear attainable objective?
3. Have the risks and costs been fully and frankly analyzed?
4. Have all other non-violent policy means been fully exhausted?
5. Is there a plausible exit strategy to avoid endless entanglement?
6. Have the consequences of our action been fully considered?
7. Is the action supported by the American people?
8. Do we have genuine broad international support?[2]

This is why the US will go to war, not because of other stuff.

1) Is National Security threatened? In Rwanda national security was not threatened. No war.
In Iraq national security, ie, OIL was threatened, war. Same in Libya, both are OPEC nations. Go figure. Afghanistan there was al Qaeda and other stuff potentially connected to profits in other Muslim countries.

Is action supported by the people. You can tell when the US wants to go to war, the media is full of pumping stories into people's heads. All these stories about how bad Iran is, but nothing about Saudi Arabia, oh, please.

The US is actually one of the biggest, if not THE biggest threat to global security in the world.

2002 there was the Coup d'etat against the democratically elected leader of Venezuela. Love democracy by getting rid of democratically elected leaders??? I mean, give me a break.

The US only goes in when its interests are at play, in the last 20 years that basically means OPEC or a few other side shows.

Powell was sec of state under bush, and we didn't follow his "policy" even when he was around, certainly had no weight the moment his ass left the office.

THat you would post that as "evidence" is pathetic.

Ohhhh. I see. The last 20 years. Now you want to move the goal line. Well I saw the bodies of all the people Saddam's Republican Guard murdered and raped in various cities. We liberated a people and stabilized global oil market and also global economy. That helped the world.

Would the US have gone in, had it been Burundi that suffered from such an invasion? A country not in OPEC, not with oil?

**** no.

 

[Correll]

The rest of the world has been taking advantage of the US for years? What nonsense. The US has been taking advantage of the rest of the world for years more like.

Go look up what the World Bank's been getting up to, for starters.

The United States is the defender of the free world. Go to a Veterans cemetery sometime asshole.

Bullshit.

The US is the defender of the US's interests. Not only is this true, but I can PROVE IT.

It's called the Powell Doctrine, made by Colin Powell.

Powell Doctrine - Wikipedia

1. Is a vital national security interest threatened?
2. Do we have a clear attainable objective?
3. Have the risks and costs been fully and frankly analyzed?
4. Have all other non-violent policy means been fully exhausted?
5. Is there a plausible exit strategy to avoid endless entanglement?
6. Have the consequences of our action been fully considered?
7. Is the action supported by the American people?
8. Do we have genuine broad international support?[2]

This is why the US will go to war, not because of other stuff.

1) Is National Security threatened? In Rwanda national security was not threatened. No war.
In Iraq national security, ie, OIL was threatened, war. Same in Libya, both are OPEC nations. Go figure. Afghanistan there was al Qaeda and other stuff potentially connected to profits in other Muslim countries.

Is action supported by the people. You can tell when the US wants to go to war, the media is full of pumping stories into people's heads. All these stories about how bad Iran is, but nothing about Saudi Arabia, oh, please.

The US is actually one of the biggest, if not THE biggest threat to global security in the world.

2002 there was the Coup d'etat against the democratically elected leader of Venezuela. Love democracy by getting rid of democratically elected leaders??? I mean, give me a break.

The US only goes in when its interests are at play, in the last 20 years that basically means OPEC or a few other side shows.

Powell was sec of state under bush, and we didn't follow his "policy" even when he was around, certainly had no weight the moment his ass left the office.

THat you would post that as "evidence" is pathetic.

Ohhhh. I see. The last 20 years. Now you want to move the goal line. Well I saw the bodies of all the people Saddam's Republican Guard murdered and raped in various cities. We liberated a people and stabilized global oil market and also global economy. That helped the world.

200,000 killed in George Bush's cluster ****

He also destabilized the region leading to hundreds of thousands of more deaths

Mission Accomplished

Says the man not realizing how racist it is taking all the personal responsibility away from the brown guy and giving it to the white guy.


Liberals: All the self awareness of a turnip.

 

[Correll]

The rest of the world has been taking advantage of the US for years? What nonsense. The US has been taking advantage of the rest of the world for years more like.

Go look up what the World Bank's been getting up to, for starters.

The United States is the defender of the free world. Go to a Veterans cemetery sometime asshole.

Bullshit.

The US is the defender of the US's interests. Not only is this true, but I can PROVE IT.

It's called the Powell Doctrine, made by Colin Powell.

Powell Doctrine - Wikipedia

1. Is a vital national security interest threatened?
2. Do we have a clear attainable objective?
3. Have the risks and costs been fully and frankly analyzed?
4. Have all other non-violent policy means been fully exhausted?
5. Is there a plausible exit strategy to avoid endless entanglement?
6. Have the consequences of our action been fully considered?
7. Is the action supported by the American people?
8. Do we have genuine broad international support?[2]

This is why the US will go to war, not because of other stuff.

1) Is National Security threatened? In Rwanda national security was not threatened. No war.
In Iraq national security, ie, OIL was threatened, war. Same in Libya, both are OPEC nations. Go figure. Afghanistan there was al Qaeda and other stuff potentially connected to profits in other Muslim countries.

Is action supported by the people. You can tell when the US wants to go to war, the media is full of pumping stories into people's heads. All these stories about how bad Iran is, but nothing about Saudi Arabia, oh, please.

The US is actually one of the biggest, if not THE biggest threat to global security in the world.

2002 there was the Coup d'etat against the democratically elected leader of Venezuela. Love democracy by getting rid of democratically elected leaders??? I mean, give me a break.

The US only goes in when its interests are at play, in the last 20 years that basically means OPEC or a few other side shows.

Powell was sec of state under bush, and we didn't follow his "policy" even when he was around, certainly had no weight the moment his ass left the office.

THat you would post that as "evidence" is pathetic.

Ohhhh. I see. The last 20 years. Now you want to move the goal line. Well I saw the bodies of all the people Saddam's Republican Guard murdered and raped in various cities. We liberated a people and stabilized global oil market and also global economy. That helped the world.

Would the US have gone in, had it been Burundi that suffered from such an invasion? A country not in OPEC, not with oil?

**** no.

Actually depends on a lot of other factors.

You have noticed that we do invade nations that have no oil, right?

Did Grenada have oil? Did Afghanistan?

 

[rightwinger]

The United States is the defender of the free world. Go to a Veterans cemetery sometime asshole.

Bullshit.

The US is the defender of the US's interests. Not only is this true, but I can PROVE IT.

It's called the Powell Doctrine, made by Colin Powell.

Powell Doctrine - Wikipedia

1. Is a vital national security interest threatened?
2. Do we have a clear attainable objective?
3. Have the risks and costs been fully and frankly analyzed?
4. Have all other non-violent policy means been fully exhausted?
5. Is there a plausible exit strategy to avoid endless entanglement?
6. Have the consequences of our action been fully considered?
7. Is the action supported by the American people?
8. Do we have genuine broad international support?[2]

This is why the US will go to war, not because of other stuff.

1) Is National Security threatened? In Rwanda national security was not threatened. No war.
In Iraq national security, ie, OIL was threatened, war. Same in Libya, both are OPEC nations. Go figure. Afghanistan there was al Qaeda and other stuff potentially connected to profits in other Muslim countries.

Is action supported by the people. You can tell when the US wants to go to war, the media is full of pumping stories into people's heads. All these stories about how bad Iran is, but nothing about Saudi Arabia, oh, please.

The US is actually one of the biggest, if not THE biggest threat to global security in the world.

2002 there was the Coup d'etat against the democratically elected leader of Venezuela. Love democracy by getting rid of democratically elected leaders??? I mean, give me a break.

The US only goes in when its interests are at play, in the last 20 years that basically means OPEC or a few other side shows.

Powell was sec of state under bush, and we didn't follow his "policy" even when he was around, certainly had no weight the moment his ass left the office.

THat you would post that as "evidence" is pathetic.

Ohhhh. I see. The last 20 years. Now you want to move the goal line. Well I saw the bodies of all the people Saddam's Republican Guard murdered and raped in various cities. We liberated a people and stabilized global oil market and also global economy. That helped the world.

200,000 killed in George Bush's cluster ****

He also destabilized the region leading to hundreds of thousands of more deaths

Mission Accomplished

Says the man not realizing how racist it is taking all the personal responsibility away from the brown guy and giving it to the white guy.


Liberals: All the self awareness of a turnip.

No idea what that has to do with what I posted

Just more......pity the poor white man

 

[rightwinger]

The United States is the defender of the free world. Go to a Veterans cemetery sometime asshole.

Bullshit.

The US is the defender of the US's interests. Not only is this true, but I can PROVE IT.

It's called the Powell Doctrine, made by Colin Powell.

Powell Doctrine - Wikipedia

1. Is a vital national security interest threatened?
2. Do we have a clear attainable objective?
3. Have the risks and costs been fully and frankly analyzed?
4. Have all other non-violent policy means been fully exhausted?
5. Is there a plausible exit strategy to avoid endless entanglement?
6. Have the consequences of our action been fully considered?
7. Is the action supported by the American people?
8. Do we have genuine broad international support?[2]

This is why the US will go to war, not because of other stuff.

1) Is National Security threatened? In Rwanda national security was not threatened. No war.
In Iraq national security, ie, OIL was threatened, war. Same in Libya, both are OPEC nations. Go figure. Afghanistan there was al Qaeda and other stuff potentially connected to profits in other Muslim countries.

Is action supported by the people. You can tell when the US wants to go to war, the media is full of pumping stories into people's heads. All these stories about how bad Iran is, but nothing about Saudi Arabia, oh, please.

The US is actually one of the biggest, if not THE biggest threat to global security in the world.

2002 there was the Coup d'etat against the democratically elected leader of Venezuela. Love democracy by getting rid of democratically elected leaders??? I mean, give me a break.

The US only goes in when its interests are at play, in the last 20 years that basically means OPEC or a few other side shows.

Powell was sec of state under bush, and we didn't follow his "policy" even when he was around, certainly had no weight the moment his ass left the office.

THat you would post that as "evidence" is pathetic.

Ohhhh. I see. The last 20 years. Now you want to move the goal line. Well I saw the bodies of all the people Saddam's Republican Guard murdered and raped in various cities. We liberated a people and stabilized global oil market and also global economy. That helped the world.

Would the US have gone in, had it been Burundi that suffered from such an invasion? A country not in OPEC, not with oil?

**** no.

Actually depends on a lot of other factors.

You have noticed that we do invade nations that have no oil, right?

Did Grenada have oil? Did Afghanistan?

So funny

You brought up Grenada

 

[Correll]

Bullshit.

The US is the defender of the US's interests. Not only is this true, but I can PROVE IT.

It's called the Powell Doctrine, made by Colin Powell.

Powell Doctrine - Wikipedia

1. Is a vital national security interest threatened?
2. Do we have a clear attainable objective?
3. Have the risks and costs been fully and frankly analyzed?
4. Have all other non-violent policy means been fully exhausted?
5. Is there a plausible exit strategy to avoid endless entanglement?
6. Have the consequences of our action been fully considered?
7. Is the action supported by the American people?
8. Do we have genuine broad international support?[2]

This is why the US will go to war, not because of other stuff.

1) Is National Security threatened? In Rwanda national security was not threatened. No war.
In Iraq national security, ie, OIL was threatened, war. Same in Libya, both are OPEC nations. Go figure. Afghanistan there was al Qaeda and other stuff potentially connected to profits in other Muslim countries.

Is action supported by the people. You can tell when the US wants to go to war, the media is full of pumping stories into people's heads. All these stories about how bad Iran is, but nothing about Saudi Arabia, oh, please.

The US is actually one of the biggest, if not THE biggest threat to global security in the world.

2002 there was the Coup d'etat against the democratically elected leader of Venezuela. Love democracy by getting rid of democratically elected leaders??? I mean, give me a break.

The US only goes in when its interests are at play, in the last 20 years that basically means OPEC or a few other side shows.

Powell was sec of state under bush, and we didn't follow his "policy" even when he was around, certainly had no weight the moment his ass left the office.

THat you would post that as "evidence" is pathetic.

Ohhhh. I see. The last 20 years. Now you want to move the goal line. Well I saw the bodies of all the people Saddam's Republican Guard murdered and raped in various cities. We liberated a people and stabilized global oil market and also global economy. That helped the world.

200,000 killed in George Bush's cluster ****

He also destabilized the region leading to hundreds of thousands of more deaths

Mission Accomplished

Says the man not realizing how racist it is taking all the personal responsibility away from the brown guy and giving it to the white guy.


Liberals: All the self awareness of a turnip.

No idea what that has to do with what I posted

Just more......pity the poor white man

Ouch, I thought my meaning was clear.

I will dumb it down for you.


Saddam was absolute ruler of his nation, IRAQ, for over twenty years.

He was the one that launched the war against Kuwait, refused to leave, leading to the war with the US, and insisted on continuing to **** with US after that, even after 9-11 which obviously put the US on a hair trigger.

Yet, you remove ALL responsibility from him, the brown one, for his actions, and put it ALL on the White Guy, Bush.


As though Saddam was a child, not responsible for his actions and policies.


Why does he get a pass? Is it because you like him?

I don't think so.


Is it because you don't consider brown people to be responsible for their own actions?


That matches up a lot with lefty ideology and soft racism.

 

[Correll]

Bullshit.

The US is the defender of the US's interests. Not only is this true, but I can PROVE IT.

It's called the Powell Doctrine, made by Colin Powell.

Powell Doctrine - Wikipedia

1. Is a vital national security interest threatened?
2. Do we have a clear attainable objective?
3. Have the risks and costs been fully and frankly analyzed?
4. Have all other non-violent policy means been fully exhausted?
5. Is there a plausible exit strategy to avoid endless entanglement?
6. Have the consequences of our action been fully considered?
7. Is the action supported by the American people?
8. Do we have genuine broad international support?[2]

This is why the US will go to war, not because of other stuff.

1) Is National Security threatened? In Rwanda national security was not threatened. No war.
In Iraq national security, ie, OIL was threatened, war. Same in Libya, both are OPEC nations. Go figure. Afghanistan there was al Qaeda and other stuff potentially connected to profits in other Muslim countries.

Is action supported by the people. You can tell when the US wants to go to war, the media is full of pumping stories into people's heads. All these stories about how bad Iran is, but nothing about Saudi Arabia, oh, please.

The US is actually one of the biggest, if not THE biggest threat to global security in the world.

2002 there was the Coup d'etat against the democratically elected leader of Venezuela. Love democracy by getting rid of democratically elected leaders??? I mean, give me a break.

The US only goes in when its interests are at play, in the last 20 years that basically means OPEC or a few other side shows.

Powell was sec of state under bush, and we didn't follow his "policy" even when he was around, certainly had no weight the moment his ass left the office.

THat you would post that as "evidence" is pathetic.

Ohhhh. I see. The last 20 years. Now you want to move the goal line. Well I saw the bodies of all the people Saddam's Republican Guard murdered and raped in various cities. We liberated a people and stabilized global oil market and also global economy. That helped the world.

Would the US have gone in, had it been Burundi that suffered from such an invasion? A country not in OPEC, not with oil?

**** no.

Actually depends on a lot of other factors.

You have noticed that we do invade nations that have no oil, right?

Did Grenada have oil? Did Afghanistan?

So funny

You brought up Grenada

It's a non-opec nation we invaded. That contradicts his implied premise that we only invade oil rich nations.

Do you understand me? Do I need to dumb that down more?

 

[rightwinger]

Powell was sec of state under bush, and we didn't follow his "policy" even when he was around, certainly had no weight the moment his ass left the office.

THat you would post that as "evidence" is pathetic.

Ohhhh. I see. The last 20 years. Now you want to move the goal line. Well I saw the bodies of all the people Saddam's Republican Guard murdered and raped in various cities. We liberated a people and stabilized global oil market and also global economy. That helped the world.

200,000 killed in George Bush's cluster ****

He also destabilized the region leading to hundreds of thousands of more deaths

Mission Accomplished

Says the man not realizing how racist it is taking all the personal responsibility away from the brown guy and giving it to the white guy.


Liberals: All the self awareness of a turnip.

No idea what that has to do with what I posted

Just more......pity the poor white man

Ouch, I thought my meaning was clear.

I will dumb it down for you.


Saddam was absolute ruler of his nation, IRAQ, for over twenty years.

He was the one that launched the war against Kuwait, refused to leave, leading to the war with the US, and insisted on continuing to **** with US after that, even after 9-11 which obviously put the US on a hair trigger.

Yet, you remove ALL responsibility from him, the brown one, for his actions, and put it ALL on the White Guy, Bush.


As though Saddam was a child, not responsible for his actions and policies.


Why does he get a pass? Is it because you like him?

I don't think so.


Is it because you don't consider brown people to be responsible for their own actions?


That matches up a lot with lefty ideology and soft racism.

What universe do you live in?
I supported Bush 41 for liberating Kuwait and being wise enough to not try to conquer Iraq

I adamantly opposed Bush 43 abandoning the war on terror to conquer Iraq

Had nothing to do with anyone being "brown"

 

[Correll]

Ohhhh. I see. The last 20 years. Now you want to move the goal line. Well I saw the bodies of all the people Saddam's Republican Guard murdered and raped in various cities. We liberated a people and stabilized global oil market and also global economy. That helped the world.

200,000 killed in George Bush's cluster ****

He also destabilized the region leading to hundreds of thousands of more deaths

Mission Accomplished

Says the man not realizing how racist it is taking all the personal responsibility away from the brown guy and giving it to the white guy.


Liberals: All the self awareness of a turnip.

No idea what that has to do with what I posted

Just more......pity the poor white man

Ouch, I thought my meaning was clear.

I will dumb it down for you.


Saddam was absolute ruler of his nation, IRAQ, for over twenty years.

He was the one that launched the war against Kuwait, refused to leave, leading to the war with the US, and insisted on continuing to **** with US after that, even after 9-11 which obviously put the US on a hair trigger.

Yet, you remove ALL responsibility from him, the brown one, for his actions, and put it ALL on the White Guy, Bush.


As though Saddam was a child, not responsible for his actions and policies.


Why does he get a pass? Is it because you like him?

I don't think so.


Is it because you don't consider brown people to be responsible for their own actions?


That matches up a lot with lefty ideology and soft racism.

What universe do you live in?
I supported Bush 41 for liberating Kuwait and being wise enough to not try to conquer Iraq

I adamantly opposed Bush 43 abandoning the war on terror to conquer Iraq

Had nothing to do with anyone being "brown"

Wow.

Still unable to see that the brown guy is a player too.


Even after having the fact rubbed in your face.


See, "Racism" is more than just something you use to smear your enemies.


It has a real actual meaning.


And your being unable to see that the brown guy bears much of the responsibility for the clash between Iraq and the US, is racism on your part.

ACTUAL, racism, not the way you lefties mis use it.


I would think you would want to deal with that.

 

[Dragonlady]

The United States is the defender of the free world. Go to a Veterans cemetery sometime asshole.

Bullshit.

The US is the defender of the US's interests. Not only is this true, but I can PROVE IT.

It's called the Powell Doctrine, made by Colin Powell.

Powell Doctrine - Wikipedia

1. Is a vital national security interest threatened?
2. Do we have a clear attainable objective?
3. Have the risks and costs been fully and frankly analyzed?
4. Have all other non-violent policy means been fully exhausted?
5. Is there a plausible exit strategy to avoid endless entanglement?
6. Have the consequences of our action been fully considered?
7. Is the action supported by the American people?
8. Do we have genuine broad international support?[2]

This is why the US will go to war, not because of other stuff.

1) Is National Security threatened? In Rwanda national security was not threatened. No war.
In Iraq national security, ie, OIL was threatened, war. Same in Libya, both are OPEC nations. Go figure. Afghanistan there was al Qaeda and other stuff potentially connected to profits in other Muslim countries.

Is action supported by the people. You can tell when the US wants to go to war, the media is full of pumping stories into people's heads. All these stories about how bad Iran is, but nothing about Saudi Arabia, oh, please.

The US is actually one of the biggest, if not THE biggest threat to global security in the world.

2002 there was the Coup d'etat against the democratically elected leader of Venezuela. Love democracy by getting rid of democratically elected leaders??? I mean, give me a break.

The US only goes in when its interests are at play, in the last 20 years that basically means OPEC or a few other side shows.

Powell was sec of state under bush, and we didn't follow his "policy" even when he was around, certainly had no weight the moment his ass left the office.

THat you would post that as "evidence" is pathetic.

Ohhhh. I see. The last 20 years. Now you want to move the goal line. Well I saw the bodies of all the people Saddam's Republican Guard murdered and raped in various cities. We liberated a people and stabilized global oil market and also global economy. That helped the world.

Would the US have gone in, had it been Burundi that suffered from such an invasion? A country not in OPEC, not with oil?

**** no.

Actually depends on a lot of other factors.

You have noticed that we do invade nations that have no oil, right?

Did Grenada have oil? Did Afghanistan?

What about East Timor - one of the greatest human rights tragedies of the last 50 years, where 1/10th of the country's population was systematically enslaved, tortured and murdered by occupying forces from Indonesia?

If you've never heard of it, that's because the US and the rest of the world stood back and let it happen. East Timor had no oil, no prized resources, no strategic location, no large American corporations owned property there. So people died and no one cared.

The history of US involvement in outside conflicts all too often depends on US corporations owing significant assets there. That's why the democratically elected government of Venezuela was overthrown. They were going to nationalize the oil. US corporations owned that oil.

Afghanistan was invaded because Bin Laden was thought to be there.

 

[rightwinger]

200,000 killed in George Bush's cluster ****

He also destabilized the region leading to hundreds of thousands of more deaths

Mission Accomplished

Says the man not realizing how racist it is taking all the personal responsibility away from the brown guy and giving it to the white guy.


Liberals: All the self awareness of a turnip.

No idea what that has to do with what I posted

Just more......pity the poor white man

Ouch, I thought my meaning was clear.

I will dumb it down for you.


Saddam was absolute ruler of his nation, IRAQ, for over twenty years.

He was the one that launched the war against Kuwait, refused to leave, leading to the war with the US, and insisted on continuing to **** with US after that, even after 9-11 which obviously put the US on a hair trigger.

Yet, you remove ALL responsibility from him, the brown one, for his actions, and put it ALL on the White Guy, Bush.


As though Saddam was a child, not responsible for his actions and policies.


Why does he get a pass? Is it because you like him?

I don't think so.


Is it because you don't consider brown people to be responsible for their own actions?


That matches up a lot with lefty ideology and soft racism.

What universe do you live in?
I supported Bush 41 for liberating Kuwait and being wise enough to not try to conquer Iraq

I adamantly opposed Bush 43 abandoning the war on terror to conquer Iraq

Had nothing to do with anyone being "brown"

Wow.

Still unable to see that the brown guy is a player too.


Even after having the fact rubbed in your face.


See, "Racism" is more than just something you use to smear your enemies.


It has a real actual meaning.


And your being unable to see that the brown guy bears much of the responsibility for the clash between Iraq and the US, is racism on your part.

ACTUAL, racism, not the way you lefties mis use it.


I would think you would want to deal with that.

You are getting freaky

 

[Dragonlady]

The invasion of Iraq is ALL on Bush. He wanted Saddam's oil so he lied about WMD's.

Bush took out Saddam which destabilized the whole region. He fired Saddam's army and let them keep their weapons, leading directly to the creation of ISIS.

He brought in outside contractors to rebuild the country alienating the Iraqi people and installed a Shi ite government which wanted revenge on the Sunnis.

The region was NEVER peaceful or stable thereafter. Opposition was always flaring up, and the people resented the rich Americans while they suffered with shortages of food, water and jobs.

Saddam was an asshole and a dictator but the Iraqi war killed 100,000 civilians so how were Americans really any different than Saddam?

 

[Correll]

Says the man not realizing how racist it is taking all the personal responsibility away from the brown guy and giving it to the white guy.


Liberals: All the self awareness of a turnip.

No idea what that has to do with what I posted

Just more......pity the poor white man

Ouch, I thought my meaning was clear.

I will dumb it down for you.


Saddam was absolute ruler of his nation, IRAQ, for over twenty years.

He was the one that launched the war against Kuwait, refused to leave, leading to the war with the US, and insisted on continuing to **** with US after that, even after 9-11 which obviously put the US on a hair trigger.

Yet, you remove ALL responsibility from him, the brown one, for his actions, and put it ALL on the White Guy, Bush.


As though Saddam was a child, not responsible for his actions and policies.


Why does he get a pass? Is it because you like him?

I don't think so.


Is it because you don't consider brown people to be responsible for their own actions?


That matches up a lot with lefty ideology and soft racism.

What universe do you live in?
I supported Bush 41 for liberating Kuwait and being wise enough to not try to conquer Iraq

I adamantly opposed Bush 43 abandoning the war on terror to conquer Iraq

Had nothing to do with anyone being "brown"

Wow.

Still unable to see that the brown guy is a player too.


Even after having the fact rubbed in your face.


See, "Racism" is more than just something you use to smear your enemies.


It has a real actual meaning.


And your being unable to see that the brown guy bears much of the responsibility for the clash between Iraq and the US, is racism on your part.

ACTUAL, racism, not the way you lefties mis use it.


I would think you would want to deal with that.

You are getting freaky

That creepy feeling is your brain trying to hide from a painful realization.


YOu are being racist by treating the brown person like a child not responsible for his own actions.

You can stop doing that.

It won't mean that you have to change your opinion on GWBush, or support the Iraq War or anything like that.


Just stop giving the white guy the blame for the portion of events under the control of the brown guy.


Spending some time thinking about WHY you did that in the first place might be good too.