HitsRus;1730615 wrote:Charles Krauthammer has a great article today that is particularly relevant to this discussion. You can argue whether the war was a mistake, based on a false premise, or was too costly in American lives....but Bush handed off to Obama a victory. what has transpired since is even worse, because it has negated what we paid so dearly for......and that is entirely related to the next election, and those responsible for it.
http://www.omaha.com/opinion/charles-krauthammer-there-s-no-question-who-authored-latest-iraq/article_3ed7e855-cc97-54ec-abd5-fbe47c17cb8b.html

Not going to read any article written by an ultra neoconservative like Krauthammer. When will the likes of Krauthammer come forward with their mea culpas for their collective voices in being proactive in the Iraq invasion? ISIS, and any other radical Islamic State forces would not be in Iraq had Bush just stayed TFO. That's a fact. You have people like Jfog ripping into Ytowngrl for voicing the truth on what happened. For over a year, all we hear is that Clinton is responsible for the death of 4 Americans. But God forbid someone bring up the 4200 dead soldiers because of Bush's debacle....or the 35000 American soldiers that are either physically or mentally maimed for life...and will never live a normal or productive life. And it's worthy to note on this Memorial Day...that ytowngrl actually served...and Jfog didn't.

For over a year, all we hear is that Clinton is responsible for the death of 4 Americans. But God forbid someone bring up the 4200 dead soldiers because of Bush's debacle....

wow...is a year a long time?....you've been yammering on Bush for 10 years. Bush is no longer relevant, but the people handling the situation now are.

Footwedge;1730765 wrote:ISIS, and any other radical Islamic State forces would not be in Iraq had Bush just stayed TFO. That's a fact.

Do you really believe this?

Do you really think that the rise of ISIS, Al Qaeda, et al is a result US intervention into Middle East?

Really?

wkfan;1730840 wrote:Do you really believe this?

Do you really think that the rise of ISIS, Al Qaeda, et al is a result US intervention into Middle East?

Really?

What I said was...ISIS.or any other radical Islamic group would not be in Iraq had we not invaded and destroyed their country. It's that simple. You can believe anything you want..but that is a fact.

HitsRus;1730773 wrote:wow...is a year a long time?....you've been yammering on Bush for 10 years. Bush is no longer relevant, but the people handling the situation now are.

I have no idea if Clinton was irresponsible...don't fucking care. What I care about is the 40,000 casualties that were a direct result of the idiot who ran the White House from 2000 to 2008. To me...40,000 is > than 4.

HitsRus;1730615 wrote:Charles Krauthammer has a great article today that is particularly relevant to this discussion. You can argue whether the war was a mistake, based on a false premise, or was too costly in American lives....but Bush handed off to Obama a victory. what has transpired since is even worse, because it has negated what we paid so dearly for......and that is entirely related to the next election, and those responsible for it.
http://www.omaha.com/opinion/charles-krauthammer-there-s-no-question-who-authored-latest-iraq/article_3ed7e855-cc97-54ec-abd5-fbe47c17cb8b.html

Also..the bolded part here is as is disingenuous as it gets. Bush handed Obama a victory? Based on what? Bush handed off a huge clusterfuck...nothing more..nothing less.

OK...I read Krauthammer's article. It was one of the most revolting piles of crud I have ever stomached. First of all, when you invade a country. destroy their infrastructure, have the result of 15% of their population killed, and leave the country in ruins like we did, there will ALWAYS be grave repercussions. Never mind that we did it based on manipulation and deceit. Secondly, Krauthammer is implicitly blaming Obama for allowing ISIS to overtake Iraq. People conveniently forget that the overwhelming majority of Americans (75%) wanted us to GTFO of Iraq...knowing full well that there would be the inevitable bad repercussions. Maybe we should still be in Vietnam today as well, eh?

No...if neoconservatives like Krauthammer want to find the culprit of having an Islamic terrorist group running Iraq today, they need to look in the mirror and start swearing at themselves...for they are the guilty ones.

wkfan;1730840 wrote:Do you really believe this?

Do you really think that the rise of ISIS, Al Qaeda, et al is a result US intervention into Middle East?

Really?

Don't know about ISIS, but bin Ladin made it clear in several of his orations. Bin Ladin listed 2 reasons for forming Al Quada.

1. Unbridled one sided financial and military support for Israel.
2. The occupation of the US military in Islamic countries.

Yes. Naturally. Bin Laden would NEVER be biased or have his perception skewed. Let's listen to whatever he said and take it to heart! \o/

Footwedge;1730941 wrote:Don't know about ISIS, but bin Ladin made it clear in several of his orations. Bin Ladin listed 2 reasons for forming Al Quada.

1. Unbridled one sided financial and military support for Israel.
2. The occupation of the US military in Islamic countries.

Al qaeda formed in the late 80s. A dozen years before Bush became president.

Don't know about ISIS, but bin Ladin made it clear in several of his orations. Bin Ladin listed 2 reasons for forming Al Quada.

1. Unbridled one sided financial and military support for Israel.
2. The occupation of the US military in Islamic countries.

Don't know to many presidents that considered turning our backs on Israel, except the current one. I guess we'll see how that works out.

Meanwhile, if you don't like Neocon commentary, try Bob Woodward.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=cP6yPjMprK8

I think most reasonable people who don't have their head buried in the Daily Kos, realize that mistakes were made, but that Bush did not deliberately "lie". The biggest mistake was early postwar management (Paul Bremer insisting on dismantling the entire Iraqi army), but after the surge, Iraq was stable when Bush handed it off to Barry. What followed , and what continues is owned by Barry.

superman;1730972 wrote:Al qaeda formed in the late 80s. A dozen years before Bush became president.

Our intervention goes back to at least1953 when our cia helped overthrow the Iranian government. So it is not Bush's fault but our terrible interventionist foreign policy in the middle east. Imagine if the Chinese came in to Ohio and just set up shop with some soldiers and tanks or just tried to overthrow our government and just hang around for 60 years.

Wolves of Babylon;1730976 wrote:Our intervention goes back to at least1953 when our cia helped overthrow the Iranian government. So it is not Bush's fault but our terrible interventionist foreign policy in the middle east. Imagine if the Chinese came in to Ohio and just set up shop with some soldiers and tanks or just tried to overthrow our government and just hang around for 60 years.

I agree. Just tired of idiot liberals blaming everything on Bush.

Why are you all arguing with a top 3 dumbest poster on this site (FW)?

HitsRus;1730975 wrote:Don't know to many presidents that considered turning our backs on Israel, except the current one. I guess we'll see how that works out. Iraq was stable when Bush handed it off to Barry. What followed , and what continues is owned by Barry.

One: If Obama hates Israel so much, why is it still the number one country in terms of U.S. military foreign aid? Such a bad strawman, that once you get into the specifics, falls apart. https://fas.org/sgp/crs/mideast/RL33222.pdf

"After years of negotiations, the United States and Israel announced in 2010 that Israel will purchase 19 F-35s at a cost of $2.75 billion. "
Man, Obama really hated Israel there...

Two. Not sure Iraq was stable when Bush left. Sure, the violence was down, but Maliki was sowing the seeds to the current mess. And, if anyone deserves blame for the current situation in Iraq, it is Maliki. He turned away all the good will that the U.S. and Sunnis built up during the surge. There is also the SOFA agreement, that there is no political way Obama could overturn until last year. Now, from 2014-current, I will agree, the administration has screwed it up. But, it is a little more complicated than just say blame Obama.

Sunnis and Shiites have been fighting violently in this world and killing each other for centuries. What you see today is nothing new to history. Blaming a nation just over two centuries old for the current bloodletting is folly. Saddam Hussein, Muammar Gaddafi, Bashar Assad, their days were already numbered. The hatred you see unfolding in these folks is centuries old. Not a product of the US. Seeded centuries before anyone even knew of North America.

People like Footwedge would blame the US for supplying arms necessary to empower the evil dictators to brutally keep their shitbags in line then blame the US if they fall out of favor and the US removes them from power. The US could retreat to its borders and these people would not be holding hands and singing kumbya. The world is governed by the aggressive use of force. Someone is going to wield it. The question is who do you want wielding the sword.

majorspark;1731044 wrote:Sunnis and Shiites have been fighting violently in this world and killing each other for centuries. What you see today is nothing new to history. Blaming a nation just over two centuries old for the current bloodletting is folly. Saddam Hussein, Muammar Gaddafi, Bashar Assad, their days were already numbered. The hatred you see unfolding in these folks is centuries old. Not a product of the US. Seeded centuries before anyone even knew of North America.

People like Footwedge would blame the US for supplying arms necessary to empower the evil dictators to brutally keep their shitbags in line then blame the US if they fall out of favor and the US removes them from power. The US could retreat to its borders and these people would not be holding hands and singing kumbya. The world is governed by the aggressive use of force. Someone is going to wield it. The question is who do you want wielding the sword.

SMH. What is it about following the Constitution do you not understand? Our founding fathers came here to escape the empire mentality and said so in the constitution. You're OK with world hegemony...the Constitution says otherwise.''

For starters, try googling "we do not seek out monsters to destroy"...and then get back to me.

superman;1730972 wrote:Al qaeda formed in the late 80s. A dozen years before Bush became president.

And,,,Al Quada was formed because of the 2 reasons I listed above. We've had our shit on their landsfor along, long time.

HitsRus;1730975 wrote:Don't know to many presidents that considered turning our backs on Israel, except the current one. I guess we'll see how that works out.

Meanwhile, if you don't like Neocon commentary, try Bob Woodward.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=cP6yPjMprK8

I think most reasonable people who don't have their head buried in the Daily Kos, realize that mistakes were made, but that Bush did not deliberately "lie". The biggest mistake was early postwar management (Paul Bremer insisting on dismantling the entire Iraqi army), but after the surge, Iraq was stable when Bush handed it off to Barry. What followed , and what continues is owned by Barry.

No...not the Daily Kos...but the reports from the UN inspection teams, the Iraq study Group's 1 and 2...and countless other agencies. Even Bush toady George Tenet and director of the CIA at that time, said that the intelligence was fixed to fit the neocon agenda, You want to live in denial as to what actually happened, go for it. Others see the truth for what it was.

It's a sad commentary that even today...after all the revelations, there are people that continue to give that horrible administration a pass for what he did.

like_that;1730978 wrote:Why are you all arguing with a top 3 dumbest poster on this site (FW)?

You don't dare debate me on the Iraq war, loser.

superman;1730977 wrote:I agree. Just tired of idiot liberals blaming everything on Bush.

I'm not a liberal...at all. You dont need to be a fucking liberal to denounce what he did, I voted for Reagan twice, Bush 41 once, Ross Perot and Bob Dole. Unlike you, I font vote party, I vote candidate, The only democrat I've ever voted for was Kerry, because I knew what a wretch Bush 43 was.

CenterBHSFan;1730971 wrote:Yes. Naturally. Bin Laden would NEVER be biased or have his perception skewed. Let's listen to whatever he said and take it to heart! \o/

If you don't think occupying their lands as one of the primary reasons for the formation of Al Quada, then you sir are plain ignorant. What motivation did bin Ladin have in lying? The answer is none.

Footwedge;1731051 wrote:The only democrat I've ever voted for was Kerry, because I knew what a wretch Bush 43 was.

I won't deny that "W" was shaky, but you actually thought Kerry was a better choice?

Footwedge;1731051 wrote:I'm not a liberal...at all. You dont need to be a fucking liberal to denounce what he did, I voted for Reagan twice, Bush 41 once, Ross Perot and Bob Dole. Unlike you, I font vote party, I vote candidate, The only democrat I've ever voted for was Kerry, because I knew what a wretch Bush 43 was.

Why can't liberals just own what they are? Why do they always feel the need to lie about it? If being liberal is so detestable, why do they continue to be one?

superman;1731066 wrote:Why can't liberals just own what they are? Why do they always feel the need to lie about it? If being liberal is so detestable, why do they continue to be one?

So, if I'm a liberal, then why did I vote for Reagan twice, Bush 41, Ross Perot and Bob Dole? Answer the question. Go.