Jump to content


Photo
- - - - -

To those of you left that tried so hard to convince us we needed in invade Iraq


  • Please log in to reply
27 replies to this topic

#1 cookinwithgas

cookinwithgas

    Grey Poupon Elitest Trash

  • ALL-PRO
  • 23,317 posts

Posted 07 July 2013 - 07:41 PM

http://www.cnn.com/2....html?hpt=hp_t2

 

 

fug you all, we get to deal with this for decades, congratulations it was so worth it, lets all thank a vet for allowing us to let them get into this mess



#2 NanuqoftheNorth

NanuqoftheNorth

    Frosty Alaskan Amber

  • HUDDLER
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 4,452 posts
  • LocationAlaska

Posted 07 July 2013 - 08:50 PM

What are the chances a preemptive invasion of Iraq would have happened if we had a military draft in this country?

 

I'm guessing not very likely.

 

It is much easier to pull off an imperialistic adventure like the Iraq invasion when only 1% of the population are putting their lives at risk.

 

Iraq posed no direct threat to the United States and we had no legal justification for attacking them as despicable as their leadership may have been.

 

Sadly, we will be dealing with the resulting fallout of the Iraq war internally and externally for the rest of the century, if not longer. 

 

 



#3 thefuzz

thefuzz

    coppin a feel

  • HUDDLER
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 8,334 posts

Posted 08 July 2013 - 10:00 AM

Get out of Japan, Germany, Middle East, everywhere is my call.

 

 



#4 cookinwithgas

cookinwithgas

    Grey Poupon Elitest Trash

  • ALL-PRO
  • 23,317 posts

Posted 08 July 2013 - 05:07 PM

So far it looks like abandonment of the conservative belief system, subjective memory loss, or getting out of the Tinderbox for being stupid are all candidates



#5 CarolinaCoolin

CarolinaCoolin

    SENIOR HUDDLER

  • HUDDLER
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 3,462 posts
  • LocationMaryland

Posted 09 July 2013 - 04:55 PM

Do making threads like this make you feel better about yourself or something?

#6 cookinwithgas

cookinwithgas

    Grey Poupon Elitest Trash

  • ALL-PRO
  • 23,317 posts

Posted 09 July 2013 - 05:05 PM

Yes they do, why do you ask?



#7 JeramiahCopperfield

JeramiahCopperfield

    Senior Member

  • HUDDLER
  • PipPipPipPip
  • 565 posts

Posted 09 July 2013 - 06:07 PM

First admit Obama has continued the Iraq policies the same as Bush would have, then ask your question :)

#8 cookinwithgas

cookinwithgas

    Grey Poupon Elitest Trash

  • ALL-PRO
  • 23,317 posts

Posted 09 July 2013 - 08:47 PM

WTF are you talking about?

 

Bush was going to get us out?

 

Of course he was, it was a debacle that he created and everyone knew it. Your "point" is completely stupid, Obama would have never invaded Iraq in the first place since he would never have had Cheney and Wolfie telling him to do it.



#9 JeramiahCopperfield

JeramiahCopperfield

    Senior Member

  • HUDDLER
  • PipPipPipPip
  • 565 posts

Posted 09 July 2013 - 10:37 PM

Neither would have gotten us out. Obviously Bush wouldn't have and obviously Obama didn't (that is current reality).

My point is that you are bashing neocons (which were tricked), but you don't accept you were tricked. If you were to be able to do so, then maybe those that supported the war from the beginning could accept they were tricked.

#10 venom

venom

    oneinfiniteconsciousness

  • HUDDLER
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 7,906 posts
  • LocationPleiades

Posted 10 July 2013 - 10:32 AM

WTF are you talking about?

 

Bush was going to get us out?

 

Of course he was, it was a debacle that he created and everyone knew it. Your "point" is completely stupid, Obama would have never invaded Iraq in the first place since he would never have had Cheney and Wolfie telling him to do it.


You cant honestly still think there is a difference between the two parties, can you? It's not a matter of if Obama would've done this, or that Bush did that. It's not our presidents who run the country, they just act out the agendas that are handed down to them. The goal, regardless of political ideology was to essentially take over and westernize the middle east incrementally over time. The Bush's had gotten our foot in the door with Iraq, and Obama has been fulfilling his role with the expansion of this notion.

The war against terror is an obvious guise, a falsity, with the intention of establishing public sentiment and justification for our continuous presence in the region. It's all semantics really. I mean, can we all not agree at this point that we're over there for reasons that were not initially presented to us? We've been over there for at least 10 years, however there are those that argue we never left after desert storm. Either way, this has gone on for far too long, and the list of promises that have been broken regarding our evacuation of the area is plentiful.

It should be painfully apparent that big-pharma and big-energy have reaped enormous benefits from the resources in the region, correct? Obama is a neocon just as Bush is, if not worse. He's taken the tyranny to heightened levels, eroding more civil liberties than Bush could dream of. I'm not saying Bush is better, because this is not a juvenile game of comparison we're dealing with. I'm just saying that their positions and efforts are part of a bigger plan, a bigger agenda, that had existed long before either of those two had taken office. They're merely the puppets acting it all out.

This has to be painfully obvious to you by now CWG. Please tell me this is so.

 



#11 dos poptarts

dos poptarts

    Member

  • HUDDLER
  • PipPipPipPip
  • 885 posts

Posted 10 July 2013 - 11:11 AM

WTF are you talking about?

 

Bush was going to get us out?

 

Of course he was, it was a debacle that he created and everyone knew it. Your "point" is completely stupid, Obama would have never invaded Iraq in the first place since he would never have had Cheney and Wolfie telling him to do it.

 

Huh? Obama had an easy excuse since he wasn't even in Washington so his promises about Iraq are worth zilch to me. He doesn't seem to have an issue getting involved in Libya or Syria, so any statement on Obama about Iraq is conjecture.

 

That's why I respected Kucinich in 2004 much more than Kerry. Kin was always against the war, not just when it was politically expedient to be for the war before you are against the war.



#12 cookinwithgas

cookinwithgas

    Grey Poupon Elitest Trash

  • ALL-PRO
  • 23,317 posts

Posted 10 July 2013 - 05:35 PM

Yeah, come back to me when we invade Libya or Syria.

 

Wait, does that not sound like the stupidest idea ever?

 

And yet, that's what we did in Iraq.



#13 dos poptarts

dos poptarts

    Member

  • HUDDLER
  • PipPipPipPip
  • 885 posts

Posted 11 July 2013 - 11:25 AM

Yeah, come back to me when we invade Libya or Syria.

 

Wait, does that not sound like the stupidest idea ever?

 

And yet, that's what we did in Iraq.

 

Ahh, so it's the boots on the ground that you have issue with. Well I guess non-SEAL, non-CIA boots on the ground. Drones strikes, etc...no problem. You want to change the region, if only Bush had the established tech of today he could've fired all day, all night and you'd be cool with it.



#14 cookinwithgas

cookinwithgas

    Grey Poupon Elitest Trash

  • ALL-PRO
  • 23,317 posts

Posted 11 July 2013 - 04:59 PM

You are reaching juuuuuust a little bit there



#15 venom

venom

    oneinfiniteconsciousness

  • HUDDLER
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 7,906 posts
  • LocationPleiades

Posted 11 July 2013 - 05:54 PM

You are reaching juuuuuust a little bit there

 

So you're saying that drone strikes aren't acts of war? What about the mercenaries we've hired out to overthrow middle eastern governments? The end game (westernization/regime change) is the same...however the method is different. This doesn't mean they're not one in the same.




0 user(s) are reading this topic

0 members, 0 guests, 0 anonymous users

Shop at Amazon Contact Us: info@carolinahuddle.com