Moderators: jcmanson, Sly Fox, BuryYourDuke
ALUmnus wrote:How come no one is connecting the Saddam/Iraq/WMD/chemical-weapons/Syria dots? Seems to be right in our faces.It suits no one to have that information come out. It's something I thought of a few days ago, but the bottom line is the Democrats wouldn't want that information to come out because then they would have to admit that Bush DIDN'T lie after all and that the war really was justified under the auspices that the Bush administration originally provided. On the flip side, it wouldn't necessarily be good for the Republicans because then it would open up the Iran/Iraq conflict all over again where the U.S. in some manner supported the Iraqi development/use of WMD while Reagan was in office. So in the end it would damage both groups, which would just further degrade the public's trust in the federal government as a whole.
jbock13 wrote:The same people who were against Iraq are for Syria. The same who were against Syria were for Iraq.Iraq and Syria are 2 entirely different situations. Unless you are Rachel Maddow or Bill O'Reily, there is no need to bring Politics into it. If Bush were making the same arguments about Syria I'd be opposed to it. Considering how this Administration has handled Iraq, Egypt, Syria and Iran I would trust them to run the invasion of Grenada. They are complete amateurs and their arguments don't make sense
Except for Congress... who knows what they're thinking.
I do like Humble's analysis of it. Not sure i agree completely with it but its certainly well thought out.
01LUGrad wrote:Summary: This is a really big mess with no good solution thanks to the president completely botching the situation.He already botched any possibility of a good outcome. He does everything in his power to avoid making a decision to action, preferring to do nothing and see what happens. That allows him to take credit for a success or find someone to blame for failure. It's the definition of Leading From Behind, which is his stated leadership style.
thepostman wrote:No he won't go down an history as a terrible president. Simply because he being president is historical all by itself and that is all of what will be remembered, but I know what you're getting at beej.I agree. Everything that's happened will be forgotten because he is the first Black President and his friends in the media will only focus on that and cut him slack with the rest.
Purple Haize wrote: His Presidential Library will be the biggest narcissistic homage since the Ayatollah put pictures of himself in Tehran!I've heard there is controversy on where he will choose to put it. I read he may choose Chicago, as a reflection of his life as an adult, Hawaii as a reflection of some of his childhood or surprise everyone and put it in Kenya while saying "Too late suckas! Ha ha ha!" Who knows?!
Yacht Rock wrote:What about Indonesia since that's where he went to school?Purple Haize wrote: His Presidential Library will be the biggest narcissistic homage since the Ayatollah put pictures of himself in Tehran!I've heard there is controversy on where he will choose to put it. I read he may choose Chicago, as a reflection of his life as an adult, Hawaii as a reflection of some of his childhood or surprise everyone and put it in Kenya while saying "Too late suckas! Ha ha ha!" Who knows?!
Purple Haize wrote:Indonesia will cease to exist by then according to Al Gore due to global warming.Yacht Rock wrote:What about Indonesia since that's where he went to school?Purple Haize wrote: His Presidential Library will be the biggest narcissistic homage since the Ayatollah put pictures of himself in Tehran!I've heard there is controversy on where he will choose to put it. I read he may choose Chicago, as a reflection of his life as an adult, Hawaii as a reflection of some of his childhood or surprise everyone and put it in Kenya while saying "Too late suckas! Ha ha ha!" Who knows?!
BuryYourDuke wrote:I remember in the 90's when Republicans were always mad about America being the "world police" under Bill Clinton. Then G-Dub came in and Republicans were super stoked to start bombing the living crap out of some countries. Now we are against it, Obama is for it after all. If Romney had been running the show, most of y'all would be talking about how we have to get over there and do something.That's such a false argument. Your last statement most of all. I would wager we wouldn't be in this situation if Romney were President. So saying we would only have the options we have now and Romney would be doing what Obama is doing is a non starter
BuryYourDuke wrote:I wouldn't expect anything less than that sort of convoluted logic from you.The only thing convoluted is the premise of your questions and assertions. My thoughts on what would be happening in a Romney Presidency are just as valid as yours. Saying that this situation is different than Iraq and Afghanistan is not remotely convoluted.
BuryYourDuke wrote:People like McCain will always be for war. He profits too much from it not to be. It is really the only consistent ideology he displays.Agree about mcCain. But how do you figure the world didnt change on 9/11. The 9/11 Commission got one thing right when it said 'They were at war with us but we were not at war with them' but that changed on 9/11. Sure you can spout that our interventionist policies caused these people to hate us and the attack on 9/11 was the only logical outcome, but that doesn't make it true. The world changed because America was willing to take the fight to the Islamists. American people could see that there were evil people out there looking to do us harm regardless the excuse. Now, we can debate and probably agree on the deterioration of personal liberties since then, but to say the World didnt change is false.
The world didn't change on 9/11. What Americans would accept may have, but the world didn't.
NotAJerry wrote:Decades of imperialist intervention on foreign soil is why they attacked, so yes we were at war with them. The thing that changed on 9/11 is the US government was finally granted independence from the people.Define 'Them'?
Purple Haize wrote:Brown people, duh.NotAJerry wrote:Decades of imperialist intervention on foreign soil is why they attacked, so yes we were at war with them. The thing that changed on 9/11 is the US government was finally granted independence from the people.Define 'Them'?
ALUmnus wrote:I just wanted to make sure! I'm sure it had nothing to do with their Infidel must die world viewPurple Haize wrote:Brown people, duh.NotAJerry wrote:Decades of imperialist intervention on foreign soil is why they attacked, so yes we were at war with them. The thing that changed on 9/11 is the US government was finally granted independence from the people.Define 'Them'?
- By Tothehoopyall1
The poor guy didn’t make it very long. :)
- By TH Spangler
- By LUOrange