Chief Douche Bag

[Danzig]

Originally Posted by gales0678

Blame Bush for Iraq all you want , he never would have gone if the US Senate did not give him a overwhelming majority vote

The current Vice President and Secretary of State both agreed with Dubya and the current in fact in her speech said it was the right thing to do for the commander in chief and that she knew what Bush was going through becuase she hap spent 8 yrs on the other side of Penn ave and sometimes you have to make decisions without all of the facts and information available.

I wonder how many of you would have voted agaisnt the 1st gulf war back Bush Sr 's term...........well i know one senator who did ...........it's the current VP

You can't have it both ways , Joe Biden blew the 2 biggest votes in his senate history , yet Obama is smart for picking Uncle Joe as VP with his stellar record

Picking Biden who is a supposed expert and got both Iraq WAR votes wrong , makes Obama pretty smart hey?

you mentioned gulf one....no one was against it. iraq brought that on themself when they invaded kuwait. that was probably the highest point for the u.s. in years-that coalition was quite an achievement. you might want to go back to all that happened during that time, and see the reaction when bush sr suggested taking down hussein then. and why we didn't invade iraq then. what changed in the years since then, i don't know (nothing did)? bush jr ignored everything in his rush to connect iraq to 9/11, or to something, and invade. it was an astronomical blunder. the reason the senate bit is that bush and his minions sold everyone hook, line and sinker on why to invade. it was a huge lie. we elect these people to make crucial decisions. they may not always be the most popular decision. but they should be the right one.
question: when in history has a president of this country asked for a war vote and not gotten it?

before you go to war, you're supposed to make sure that it's a righteous war, also that it's a winnable war, and that it will leave you in a better position than you were before. can you say any of those fit iraq or afganistan?

[gales0678]

Originally Posted by Danzig

you mentioned gulf one....no one was against it. iraq brought that on themself when they invaded kuwait. that was probably the highest point for the u.s. in years-that coalition was quite an achievement. you might want to go back to all that happened during that time, and see the reaction when bush sr suggested taking down hussein then. and why we didn't invade iraq then. what changed in the years since then, i don't know (nothing did)? bush jr ignored everything in his rush to connect iraq to 9/11, or to something, and invade. it was an astronomical blunder. the reason the senate bit is that bush and his minions sold everyone hook, line and sinker on why to invade. it was a huge lie. we elect these people to make crucial decisions. they may not always be the most popular decision. but they should be the right one.
question: when in history has a president of this country asked for a war vote and not gotten it?

before you go to war, you're supposed to make sure that it's a righteous war, also that it's a winnable war, and that it will leave you in a better position than you were before. can you say any of those fit iraq or afganistan?

i don't disagree with a lot of what you say , but , edwards has come out and said he made a mistkae when he voted for the authorization , kerry , biden , clinton , schumer . etc etc have not said that

senior leaders in the senate of the democratic side voted agaisnt the war ..byrd and kennedy come to mind , why didn't theses junior democratic senators listen to the elders in the party who as it turned out knew better

blame bush all you want , but if the democratic senators follwed kennedy and byrd and he only had a slim majority he probably wouldn't have gone

as for the minions selling this theory , hillary clinton's speech when she voted totally nullifies that theory , she lauded herself is a strong willed independent women who had been on both sides of the aisle penn ave and knew that decisions had to be made that were going to be tough and sometimes had to be "gut"calls

kerry was on the armed forces comittee , he saw all the reports for over a decade and knew what the deal was

these key democrats , the current VP included , all came to their own opinions and even cited data that they looked at prior to bush even being president

As for the 1st gulf war , there was a vote , and the current vp , voted against operation desert storm ....brilliant guy that joe , hey barack

[Danzig]

Originally Posted by gales0678

i don't disagree with a lot of what you say , but , edwards has come out and said he made a mistkae when he voted for the authorization , kerry , biden , clinton , schumer . etc etc have not said that

senior leaders in the senate of the democratic side voted agaisnt the war ..byrd and kennedy come to mind , why didn't theses junior democratic senators listen to the elders in the party who as it turned out knew better

blame bush all you want , but if the democratic senators follwed kennedy and byrd and he only had a slim majority he probably wouldn't have gone

as for the minions selling this theory , hillary clinton's speech when she voted totally nullifies that theory , she lauded herself is a strong willed independent women who had been on both sides of the aisle penn ave and knew that decisions had to be made that were going to be tough and sometimes had to be "gut"calls

kerry was on the armed forces comittee , he saw all the reports for over a decade and knew what the deal was

these key democrats , the current VP included , all came to their own opinions and even cited data that they looked at prior to bush even being president

As for the 1st gulf war , there was a vote , and the current vp , voted against operation desert storm ....brilliant guy that joe , hey barack

thing is, a lot of congresss members voted for the war because they felt their constituents wanted it. voting by poll numbers, rather then going by what they knew. now, some people think that's how congress is supposed to do, vote for their majority. but the voters don't necessarily have all the facts, or understand who had what to do with 9/11, and who didn't. most importantly, most voters didn't understand the power vacuum it would create by removing iraq from the picture. now voters know who amadinejad(sp) is, and wonder why iran feels they can throw their weight around. it's because of us, that's why. they wonder why we're broke. the wars, that's why. no one thought about the far-reaching implications. bush 2 thought we'd sweep thru iraq and win in a week, since that's what bush 1 did. completely different scenario from the first war to the second over there.

[gales0678]

Originally Posted by Danzig

thing is, a lot of congresss members voted for the war because they felt their constituents wanted it. voting by poll numbers, rather then going by what they knew. now, some people think that's how congress is supposed to do, vote for their majority. but the voters don't necessarily have all the facts, or understand who had what to do with 9/11, and who didn't. most importantly, most voters didn't understand the power vacuum it would create by removing iraq from the picture. now voters know who amadinejad(sp) is, and wonder why iran feels they can throw their weight around. it's because of us, that's why. they wonder why we're broke. the wars, that's why. no one thought about the far-reaching implications. bush 2 thought we'd sweep thru iraq and win in a week, since that's what bush 1 did. completely different scenario from the first war to the second over there.

blame bush all you want that's fine , the current vp of the united states who was choosen by the president voted for the war if he was snookered by the minions than he isn't fit eneought to be VP and obama should know that

just his "no" vote on the 1st iraq war should have disqualified uncle joe from any executive office

obama for picking this guy shows his lack of intellingence plain and simple

[Danzig]

Originally Posted by gales0678

blame bush all you want that's fine , the current vp of the united states who was choosen by the president voted for the war if he was snookered by the minions than he isn't fit eneought to be VP and obama should know that

just his "no" vote on the 1st iraq war should have disqualified uncle joe from any executive office

obama for picking this guy shows his lack of intellingence plain and simple

that's the thing, i don't just blame bush. i blame congress as well. it was a huge mistake by everyone involved.

and yeah, i don't care for biden. his vote against gulf one was a mistake. i don't understand why obama chose him, surely there could have been someone better? why did obama choose him for vp?

[gales0678]

Originally Posted by Danzig

that's the thing, i don't just blame bush. i blame congress as well. it was a huge mistake by everyone involved.

and yeah, i don't care for biden. his vote against gulf one was a mistake. i don't understand why obama chose him, surely there could have been someone better? why did obama choose him for vp?

because Barack does not know what he is doing despite what the meida says

A smart man could see Joe's voting record and see he doesn't have a clue

that was a dumb pick , and it's his most important pick to date

Cheny was a better pick for VP based upon his record prior to becoming vice presdient than Biden , but , somehow bush is the dumb one

[Danzig]

Originally Posted by gales0678

because Barack does not know what he is doing despite what the meida says

A smart man could see Joe's voting record and see he doesn't have a clue

that was a dumb pick , and it's his most important pick to date

Cheny was a better pick for VP based upon his record prior to becoming vice presdient than Biden , but , somehow bush is the dumb one

i think his supreme court nominees were more important picks. as for who is smarter, i don't care who was smarter, or dumber, or has what degrees from where. it's got nothing to do with their qualities or abilities as leaders. bush showed after eight years he was not a good pick; however, i don't know that his competition could have or would have done better. obama, thus far, isn't showing he's a good leader either.

[timmgirvan]

Originally Posted by Danzig

you mentioned gulf one....no one was against it. iraq brought that on themself when they invaded kuwait. that was probably the highest point for the u.s. in years-that coalition was quite an achievement. you might want to go back to all that happened during that time, and see the reaction when bush sr suggested taking down hussein then. and why we didn't invade iraq then. what changed in the years since then, i don't know (nothing did)? bush jr ignored everything in his rush to connect iraq to 9/11, or to something, and invade. it was an astronomical blunder. the reason the senate bit is that bush and his minions sold everyone hook, line and sinker on why to invade. it was a huge lie. we elect these people to make crucial decisions. they may not always be the most popular decision. but they should be the right one.
question: when in history has a president of this country asked for a war vote and not gotten it?

before you go to war, you're supposed to make sure that it's a righteous war, also that it's a winnable war, and that it will leave you in a better position than you were before. can you say any of those fit iraq or afganistan?

Iraq yes: Afghanistan no!

[Danzig]

Originally Posted by timmgirvan

Iraq yes: Afghanistan no!

iraq was not a righteous war. nor are we better off than we were before we went in.

Afghanistan is a waste of time as well.

If you can't do what you please in Pakistan then what's the point?

[timmgirvan]

Originally Posted by Danzig

iraq was not a righteous war. nor are we better off than we were before we went in.

Well...I'd feel better about it if we could find the 8.7 billion missing from the Defense dept!

[Danzig]

Originally Posted by timmgirvan

Well...I'd feel better about it if we could find the 8.7 billion missing from the Defense dept!

that's only a part of the problem. iran wouldn't be such a thorn in our side right now if we'd stayed out of there to begin with. afganistan would have gotten all our time and attention when it was needed. maybe instead of still being involved in two wars, we'd be in none right now. now, wouldn't that be nice? if we hadn't gone into iraq, we wouldn't be missing all that money right now, would we?

afganistan is fubar. history showed the difficulties that were to be found there. pakistan doesn't help. taking men, material and money from afganistan to go into iraq, which was completely unnecessary, only has drawn out the bs in afganistan.

being in those two regions right now restricts us elsewhere.

[Cannon Shell]

Originally Posted by Danzig

that's only a part of the problem. iran wouldn't be such a thorn in our side right now if we'd stayed out of there to begin with.

What in the world would lead you to believe this?

[Danzig]

Originally Posted by Cannon Shell

What in the world would lead you to believe this?

because iran and iraq kept each other in check. removing half that equation left the other half, iran, with a power vacuum to fill. they happily have done so. who over there can convince iran to behave now? saudi arabia? us? note the move to nukes since we took out saddam. remember the iran/iraq war? who backed iraq, since we used the 'enemy of our enemy is our friend' line of foreign policy for years?