A new all time low for partisan politics

[Rupert Pupkin]

Originally Posted by Danzig

of course the dissidents don't want a deal. brokering a deal means a rollback of sanctions-something i'm sure the dissidents hoped would help break the current regime.

The deal is only one piece of it. The main point is that the White House has basically ignored the issues of human rights and democracy in Iran. Obama does everything he can to overthrow regimes that are our allies such as Egypt and Libya, yet with the regime in Iran (who is our enemy), Obama does the opposite. He tries to help them. That's a great idea to get rid of regimes who are our allies but try to keep regimes in power who are our enemy. Welcome to the Obama school of foreign policy.

I realize that there are a lot of complexities when it comes to foreign policy. Sometimes you may have to throw the enemy a bone. I understand that, but overall I think Obama's foreign policy has been a disaster.

You can criticize Bush for Iraq, but at least in that case we were getting rid of an enemy and going to have it replaced with a friend. At least there was some upside there. In other words, even if invading Iraq was a bad idea, it was the greatest idea in the world compared to trying overthrow the regimes in Libya and Egypt.

[bigrun]

Originally Posted by Rupert Pupkin

The deal is only one piece of it. The main point is that the White House has basically ignored the issues of human rights and democracy in Iran. Obama does everything he can to overthrow regimes that are our allies such as Egypt and Libya, yet with the regime in Iran (who is our enemy), Obama does the opposite. He tries to help them. That's a great idea to get rid of regimes who are our allies but try to keep regimes in power who are our enemy. Welcome to the Obama school of foreign policy.

I realize that there are a lot of complexities when it comes to foreign policy. Sometimes you may have to throw the enemy a bone. I understand that, but overall I think Obama's foreign policy has been a disaster.

You can criticize Bush for Iraq, but at least in that case we were getting rid of an enemy and going to have it replaced with a friend. At least there was some upside there. In other words, even if invading Iraq was a bad idea, it was the greatest idea in the world compared to trying overthrow the regimes in Libya and Egypt.

BULLSCHIT!...How were they an enemy and a threat to us?..Iraq couldn't even hit Israel with their scud missiles in the first Gulf War..all the reasons that rogue regime -Bush/Cheney and co,-used to invade were bogus..
except he gassed his own people and who here or anywhere gave a schit..Dumya should have read his Dad's book on why he didn't pursue Saddam to Baghdad..and invading Iraq wasn't just a bad idea
it was a disaster...still is!

[Rupert Pupkin]

Originally Posted by bigrun

BULLSCHIT!...How were they an enemy and a threat to us?..Iraq couldn't even hit Israel with their scud missiles in the first Gulf War..all the reasons that rogue regime -Bush/Cheney and co,-used to invade were bogus..
except he gassed his own people and who here or anywhere gave a schit..Dumya should have read his Dad's book on why he didn't pursue Saddam to Baghdad..and invading Iraq wasn't just a bad idea
it was a disaster...still is!

Iraq was not our enemy? If you say so. At least we had something to gain by getting rid of Saddam and getting a regime in there that was friendly to us. What did we have to gain by helping to oust Mubarrak and Kaddafi, who were our allies? Helping to oust Mubarrak was a disaster. The Muslim Brotherhood took over. We are just lucky that the Egyptian military ousted the Muslim Brotherhood. Libya has turned out to be a complete disaster. How can you criticize Bush over Iraq and not slam Obama over Libya? As I said before, it is bad enough to overthrow an enemy, but why would you want to overthrow an ally?

By the way, with regard to Iraq, everyone seems to have a very short memory. We had every right to invade Iraq. If you remember, part of the agreement to the cease-fire in the Persian Gulf war were that Saddam agreed to a number of conditions. We signed a cease-fire and agreed not to invade Bagdhad as long as Saddam honored the conditions of the cease-fire. The conditions were things like open inspections, honoring the no-fly zone, not killing the Kurds, etc. Sadaam violated practically every part of the agreement. The cease-fire becomes null and void at that point and we have the right to invade. Saddam was the one who started the whole thing with his invasion of Kuwait. Just because we had the right to invade, it doesn't mean it was necessarily the right choice. But all this nonsense about Bush/Cheney being a rogue regime is absurd considering that Saddam violated practically every term of the cease-fire.

[bigrun]

Originally Posted by Rupert Pupkin

Iraq was not our enemy? If you say so. At least we had something to gain by getting rid of Saddam and getting a regime in there that was friendly to us.

Yeah right, how did that work out

What did we have to gain by helping to oust Mubarrak and Kaddafi, who were our allies? Helping to oust Mubarrak was a disaster. The Muslim Brotherhood took over. We are just lucky that the Egyptian military ousted the Muslim Brotherhood. Libya has turned out to be a complete disaster. How can you criticize Bush over Iraq and not slam Obama over Libya? As I said before, it is bad enough to overthrow an enemy, but why would you want to overthrow an ally?

I might ask you same thing.

United States support for Iraq during the Iran–Iraq War, against post-revolutionary Iran, included several billion dollars' worth of economic aid, the sale of dual-use technology, non-U.S. origin weaponry, military intelligence, Special Operations training, and direct involvement in warfare against Iran.[3][4]

Support from the U.S. for Iraq was not a secret and was frequently discussed in open session of the Senate and House of Representatives. On June 9, 1992, Ted Koppel reported on ABC's Nightline that the "Reagan/Bush administrations permitted—and frequently encouraged—the flow of money, agricultural credits, dual-use technology, chemicals, and weapons to Iraq.

By the way, with regard to Iraq, everyone seems to have a very short memory. We had every right to invade Iraq. If you remember, part of the agreement to the cease-fire in the Persian Gulf war were that Saddam agreed to a number of conditions. We signed a cease-fire and agreed not to invade Bagdhad as long as Saddam honored the conditions of the cease-fire. The conditions were things like open inspections, honoring the no-fly zone, not killing the Kurds, etc. Sadaam violated practically every part of the agreement. The cease-fire becomes null and void at that point and we have the right to invade. Saddam was the one who started the whole thing with his invasion of Kuwait. Just because we had the right to invade, it doesn't mean it was necessarily the right choice. But all this nonsense about Bush/Cheney being a rogue regime is absurd considering that Saddam violated practically every term of the cease-fire.

Really, we had the right to invade? over violation of conditions?...was there any overt military actions against us? I missed that one..I said before Dumya should have read his Dad's book..

President George H.W. Bush wrote a memoir entitled "A World Transformed", published in 1998. (It was written with Brent Scowcroft.) The following is an excerpt on why he did not invade Iraq in 1991:

"Trying to eliminate Saddam...would have incurred incalculable human and political costs. Apprehending him was probably impossible.... We would have been forced to occupy Baghdad and, in effect, rule Iraq.... there was no viable "exit strategy" we could see, violating another of our principles. Furthermore, we had been self-consciously trying to set a pattern for handling aggression in the post-Cold War world. Going in and occupying Iraq, thus unilaterally exceeding the United Nations' mandate, would have destroyed the precedent of international response to aggression that we hoped to establish. Had we gone the invasion route, the United States could conceivably still be an occupying power in a bitterly hostile land."
A concise argument against the invasion. Didn't Junior bother to read his father's book?


And those incalculable human and political costs..Remember the U.S. led coalition?..95% U.S. and 5% others!

Coalition Military Fatalities By Year

Year US UK Other Total

2001 12 0 0 12
2002 49 3 18 70
2003 48 0 10 58
2004 52 1 7 60
2005 99 1 31 131
2006 98 39 54 191
2007 117 42 73 232
2008 155 51 89 295
2009 317 108 96 521
2010 499 103 109 711
2011 418 46 102 566
2012 310 44 48 402
2013 127 9 25 161
2014 55 6 14 75
2015 0 0 1 1
Total 2356 453 677 3486

http://icasualties.org/OEF/index.aspx

http://www.forbes.com/sites/johnmcqu...-invaded-iraq/

[Rupert Pupkin]

Originally Posted by bigrun

Yeah right, how did that work out




I might ask you same thing.

United States support for Iraq during the Iran–Iraq War, against post-revolutionary Iran, included several billion dollars' worth of economic aid, the sale of dual-use technology, non-U.S. origin weaponry, military intelligence, Special Operations training, and direct involvement in warfare against Iran.[3][4]

Support from the U.S. for Iraq was not a secret and was frequently discussed in open session of the Senate and House of Representatives. On June 9, 1992, Ted Koppel reported on ABC's Nightline that the "Reagan/Bush administrations permitted—and frequently encouraged—the flow of money, agricultural credits, dual-use technology, chemicals, and weapons to Iraq.



Really, we had the right to invade? over violation of conditions?...was there any overt military actions against us? I missed that one..I said before Dumya should have read his Dad's book..

President George H.W. Bush wrote a memoir entitled "A World Transformed", published in 1998. (It was written with Brent Scowcroft.) The following is an excerpt on why he did not invade Iraq in 1991:

"Trying to eliminate Saddam...would have incurred incalculable human and political costs. Apprehending him was probably impossible.... We would have been forced to occupy Baghdad and, in effect, rule Iraq.... there was no viable "exit strategy" we could see, violating another of our principles. Furthermore, we had been self-consciously trying to set a pattern for handling aggression in the post-Cold War world. Going in and occupying Iraq, thus unilaterally exceeding the United Nations' mandate, would have destroyed the precedent of international response to aggression that we hoped to establish. Had we gone the invasion route, the United States could conceivably still be an occupying power in a bitterly hostile land."
A concise argument against the invasion. Didn't Junior bother to read his father's book?


And those incalculable human and political costs..Remember the U.S. led coalition?..95% U.S. and 5% others!

Coalition Military Fatalities By Year

Year US UK Other Total

2001 12 0 0 12
2002 49 3 18 70
2003 48 0 10 58
2004 52 1 7 60
2005 99 1 31 131
2006 98 39 54 191
2007 117 42 73 232
2008 155 51 89 295
2009 317 108 96 521
2010 499 103 109 711
2011 418 46 102 566
2012 310 44 48 402
2013 127 9 25 161
2014 55 6 14 75
2015 0 0 1 1
Total 2356 453 677 3486

http://icasualties.org/OEF/index.aspx

http://www.forbes.com/sites/johnmcqu...-invaded-iraq/

How did Iraq work out? I'd say it worked out a lot better than Libya.

How is it the fact that we aided Iraq back in the 1980s even relevant? Times change. Back in the 1980s our government believed it was in our best interest to help Iraq in their war against Iran. What does that have to do with our relationship with Iraq 15 years later?

[bigrun]

Originally Posted by Rupert Pupkin

How did Iraq work out? I'd say it worked out a lot better than Libya.

Wait..what?..Did I miss the invasion of Libya?...How many troops did we send?...are we still there?...what were our losses?....did we destroy half of their villages?...Impeach Obama!

How is it the fact that we aided Iraq back in the 1980s even relevant? Times change. Back in the 1980s our government believed it was in our best interest to help Iraq in their war against Iran. What does that have to do with our relationship with Iraq 15 years later?

The enemy of my enemy is my friend..why did dumya make an enemy of our friend?..Saddam was a Sunni and they ruled over the Shia..Iran is 80% Shia..ISIS in Iraq is mostly Sunni's..if Saddam was still in power there would be no ISIS in Iraq

[Rupert Pupkin]

Originally Posted by bigrun

Wait..what?..Did I miss the invasion of Libya?...How many troops did we send?...are we still there?...what were our losses?....did we destroy half of their villages?...Impeach Obama!



The enemy of my enemy is my friend..why did dumya make an enemy of our friend?..Saddam was a Sunni and they ruled over the Shia..Iran is 80% Shia..ISIS in Iraq is mostly Sunni's..if Saddam was still in power there would be no ISIS in Iraq

We helped with the bombing campaign in Libya. It wasn't a full scale invasion but why would we possibly have wanted to help oust an ally?

Bush made an enemy out of Saddam? Are you drunk? Saddam and the US were on terrible terms ever since the Persian Gulf war. You are correct that there would be no ISIS in Iraq if Saddam was still in power. That much is true.

I agree with you that our government needs to be careful when it comes to using the philosophy that "the enemy of my enemy is my friend". When you arm the enemy of your enemy, it can come back to bite you in the butt.

[Danzig]

Originally Posted by Rupert Pupkin

The deal is only one piece of it. The main point is that the White House has basically ignored the issues of human rights and democracy in Iran. Obama does everything he can to overthrow regimes that are our allies such as Egypt and Libya, yet with the regime in Iran (who is our enemy), Obama does the opposite. He tries to help them. That's a great idea to get rid of regimes who are our allies but try to keep regimes in power who are our enemy. Welcome to the Obama school of foreign policy.

I realize that there are a lot of complexities when it comes to foreign policy. Sometimes you may have to throw the enemy a bone. I understand that, but overall I think Obama's foreign policy has been a disaster.

You can criticize Bush for Iraq, but at least in that case we were getting rid of an enemy and going to have it replaced with a friend. At least there was some upside there. In other words, even if invading Iraq was a bad idea, it was the greatest idea in the world compared to trying overthrow the regimes in Libya and Egypt.

[Pants II]

This project is worth far more than the measly 25 billion required to build it.

http://www.csmonitor.com/World/Afric...s/%28page%29/2

That precious resource is what future generations will kill for.

Why else would one of the dynasty families buy land and mineral rights in northern Paraguay?

[Rupert Pupkin]

Originally Posted by Danzig

Coming from you (the resident brain surgeon), I take that as a compliment.

[Danzig]

Originally Posted by Rupert Pupkin

Coming from you (the resident brain surgeon), I take that as a compliment.

Ah, reducing to the personal already? Tsk tsk

Our foreign policy has been pretty much pathetic since ww2. And we've been in an almost constant state of war since then as well. To call out Obama while defending bush....well, that's not being consistent. Bush was awful, Obama is awful. Our foreign policy is a shambles.
As for 'good guys' and human rights, etc.....I would direct your attention to our most favored nation in trade.
Foreign policy isn't based on good guys vs bad.

[Pants II]

Originally Posted by Danzig

Ah, reducing to the personal already? Tsk tsk

Our foreign policy has been pretty much pathetic since ww2. And we've been in an almost constant state of war since then as well. To call out Obama while defending bush....well, that's not being consistent. Bush was awful, Obama is awful. Our foreign policy is a shambles.
As for 'good guys' and human rights, etc.....I would direct your attention to our most favored nation in trade.
Foreign policy isn't based on good guys vs bad.

We've been in conflict since the inception excluding 30 or so years in total.

Nothing new under the Sun.

[Rupert Pupkin]

Originally Posted by Danzig

Ah, reducing to the personal already? Tsk tsk

You insulted me first. You responded to my comments with the rolled eyes like my comments were crazy. I have no problem if someone disagrees with me. But if you disagree with me, tell me what I was wrong about. I think that is the most civil and constructive way of having a conversation. If someone says something I disagree with, I will say, "I disagree with you. Here are the reasons I disagree with you....." I won't just say, "You are wrong", or "you are an idiot", are "you are crazy", or anything like that. That doesn't add anything to a conversation.

[jms62]

Originally Posted by Rupert Pupkin

Coming from you (the resident brain surgeon), I take that as a compliment.

With all due respect sir you thought the solution to deer overpopulation was a Deer relocation program.

[Rupert Pupkin]

Originally Posted by jms62

With all due respect sir you thought the solution to deer overpopulation was a Deer relocation program.

I don't claim to be an expert on deer conservation. But just using common sense I'm sure it wouldn't always be possible to relocate deer. I'm sure it would depend on the size of the flock, the location, etc. However, I'm sure that in some cases it could be done, if it was a relatively small flock. I certainly don't think that every time there are too many deer (or any animal for that matter) that the first and only solution should just be to kill them all. I think that should be the last resort, if there is no other reasonable solution. It seem nowadays that any time there is a problem with overpopulation of any type of animal, they just want to kill them all. That may be the cheapest way but is that all that should matter?

[jms62]

Originally Posted by Rupert Pupkin

I don't claim to be an expert on deer conservation. But just using common sense I'm sure it wouldn't always be possible to relocate deer. I'm sure it would depend on the size of the flock, the location, etc. However, I'm sure that in some cases it could be done, if it was a relatively small flock. I certainly don't think that every time there are too many deer (or any animal for that matter) that the first and only solution should just be to kill them all. I think that should be the last resort, if there is no other reasonable solution. It seem nowadays that any time there is a problem with overpopulation of any type of animal, they just want to kill them all. That may be the cheapest way but is that all that should matter?

Nothing like doubling down on the absurd. The "I Don't claim to be an expert" escape clause is tired and old.

[dellinger63]

Deer are large squirrels. In developed/semi developed areas they do nothing but destroy newly planted trees and landscape not to mention the hazard they present on the roads. Unless there is a wolf population present they have no natural predators other than man. I've seen as many as 2 dozen in my backyard at once because there are no wolves in Southern WI. They are and have been a huge nuisance. They arent cattle and without tranquilizing them they can't be herded up. Herding squirrels and relocating them would be absurd as is the deer. BTW the deer killed by DNR are given to various food pantries so are not wasted.

[Rupert Pupkin]

Originally Posted by jms62

Nothing like doubling down on the absurd. The "I Don't claim to be an expert" escape clause is tired and old.

Forget the "I am not expert" part of it. It is irrelevant whether I am an expert. You don't need to be an expert to have an opinion on something. What did I say that you disagree with? You think I am crazy or I'm an idiot for not liking to see hundreds, or in some cases thousands of animals slaughtered every time there is an overpopulation problem in an area? I actually think you're a heartless a-hole if your first choice is to slaughter animals any time there are too many in an area. I understand that in many cases it is the only feasible option. But that shouldn't be the first choice without even considering whether there are feasible alternatives.

[Danzig]

Originally Posted by jms62

Nothing like doubling down on the absurd. The "I Don't claim to be an expert" escape clause is tired and old.

Lol

Flock of deer....