Reply With Quote
, I'll say it. Obama's a ing idiot. And a liar to boot. But, we'll survive this folly and be stronger for it.
November is just around the corner and 2012 ain't that far away either.
Obama's legacy will be a resurgence of liberty in America.
Obama has nothing to do with your cons utional rights to hang blacks, I was just asking an innocent question.
, I'll say it. Obama's a ing idiot. And a liar to boot. But, we'll survive this folly and be stronger for it.
November is just around the corner and 2012 ain't that far away either.
Obama's legacy will be a resurgence of liberty in America.
Okay, I've got a question for you. When are you going to quit being a stupid idiot?
OK, no problem. That just earned your stupid ass a place on my ignore list.
Goodbye Dumbass.
lol cons utional right to hang blacks
http://www.spurstalk.com/forums/show...&postcount=287
Considering we're still 2 years away, and in 2006 not many even knew about Obama, I'd say that's a little early of a prediction.
Yeah, all those damn Americans afraid to "interrogate" suspected, I mean, KNOWN terrorists need to stop using their First Amendment rights and get on the Liberty and Freedom Parade Float! YEEEHAWWW!
Such plans were made. Most plans usually get modified, no matter how well you plan.
They did though. There were interviews in the past with key officials that described such things.
Believe as you wish. They didn't go in blind. They just went in with less accurate intelligence than thay counted on.
It all has to do with the extent of the transition. As Iraq can do more for themselves, we do less.
If you recall, this was discussed years ago. A time frame, or in the case of democrats, a time limit like Vietnam, should never be used.
DMX, I agree with WC. They did know what would happen, because they used it as justification for why they didn't stay and take out Saddam during Desert Shield.
The problem is, they knew what might happen, but their plan to deal with it didn't work, and Bush was slow to react, waiting nearly three years before shifting gears with the Surge.
That's not even noting the fact that many of our military (soldiers in particular) didn't have much "peace-keeping" experience. There's a difference between preparing for war and preparing for an occupation. The Army is slowly shifting towards a quasi-police force/anti-terrorist agency moreso than a conventional warfare posture.
Without a time frame though, what's the motivation for Iraq in doing things for themselves? Honest question: if we're willing to provide protection indefinitely, why should they? Or are you arguing there SHOULD be a time limit, but not made public?
And, of course, the point is somewhat moot because whether we go to war or not is represented by the people (in the form of Congress) and if the people say the war should stop, it should stop, regardless of what the President or military think. After all, it's the people's money we're using to fight the war. If they don't approve, then it shouldn't continue. (With caveats made for time to safely get soldiers home.)
In 2004, he was plastered all over the news by the liberal media, well before the 2004 elections, and nationally. Not just Illinois.
You're right. I should clarify that any time frames should be kept between top government officials, and not publicly announced. It allows for more flexibility, and keeps the enemy off guard.
Do you agree with telling the enemy your timetable for movements?
I disagree there. Once you engage in a war, you stay until you can claim victory, or defeat.
War is not for quitters.
We disagree.
The public all wanted to go in. Democrats and republicans alike, a majority in each. War is an effort you commit to. It's not a game.
I know they knew what could happen. I remember Cheney saying it would have been stupid to invade the capital.
Doesn't matter though because they had no plan once the insurgency began other than to just "surge" and prey the violence died down, which really isn't a plan at all. That's my point.
I would say they had a plan. Just that the insurgency was much more than they expected, and their plans were inadequate at the time.
I was speaking of the plans for leaving Iraq. Leaving when the new government can take up the responsibilities to maintain order.
To just give a date, and say we are leaving then....
Looser at ude.
By that logic we should still be in Vietnam. You have to know when to cut your losses.
The majority of Democrats in the House voted against it.
Of course, it would be really interesting to see how much the public would have supported the war in Iraq if it knew it was being lied to and that we weren't all going to be killed by Saddam's WMDs. The administration sure did capitalize on America's stupidity though. It seemed like everyone thought Osama Bin Laden and Saddam Hussein were linked, when that was just a lie as well.
Let me interject here and add that I feel there was certain naive conception that we would be actually be received as liberators and I really believe some people in the administration really bought into that. In hindsight it was a very big miscalculation on the Sunni vs Shiite can of worms they were opening by getting rid of Saddam.
We would have won if Johnson tried to, in fact, we were winning.
Yes, I was wrong on that, but 58% of the senate democrats voted yes.
Was it a lie, or thought to be the facts?
Remember... We were dealing with information cultivated from the Clinton years. Let's not forget Public Law 107–243, where we declared regime change in Iraq, signed by President Clinton.
PUBLIC LAW 105–338—OCT. 31, 1998
IRAQ LIBERATION ACT OF 1998
Text Of Clinton Statement On Iraq
FINAL VOTE RESULTS FOR ROLL CALL 482
We need to keep things in perspective. President Obama may be finishing president Clinton's war. Not president Bush's.
The only sources I noted making that assessment, were liberals trying to pin it on republicans. Liberals went on to try to make people believe that republicans said Saddam was part of the 9/11 plot. There was never a direct link that I ever heard of. Al-Qada did train in Iraq however, and they had a loose informal relationship. There never was a direct tie between Saddam and Obama, but once the towers were bombed, it was feared WMD would be transferred into terrorists hands. If Saddam had only cooperated with the inspectors, rather than delay them long enough to move things.
Link please... that connects Osama and Saddam... I have yet seen one that says what liberals try to say republicans said.
There are some who believe we should have worked with the higher ranks of the Republican Guard. Maybe most didn't like Saddam, and would have been good leaders to change things for the better.
What do I think? I think I don't have enough facts about their beliefs to properly assess that situation.
nothing new, but at least this time you admit it.
The Iraq Liberation Act of 1998 was NOT a declaration of war. In fact, it says so specifically, "Nothing in this Act shall be construed to authorize or otherwise speak to the use of United States Armed Forces in carrying out this Act".
That act was really just a lame attempt at giving the IRAQI democratic opposition the support and resources necessary to overthrow ITS OWN government. Its original intention obviously failed, but it certainly wasn't a decleration of war, just an attempt to plant the seeds of an Iraqi Coup d'état.
Do you need a link to know who the leader of Al-Qaeda is too?
http://www. ed-online.com/articles/00000006D9F9.htm
It took me like 2 seconds to type in and do a google search. You can find plenty more, it's really not that hard.
Last edited by DMX7; 08-25-2010 at 02:22 AM.
Did you start taking Xanax? Stop drinking? Start doing pilates?
Not too long ago you used to fantasize about the end of the US republic due to Obama, but I guess the anticipated resurgence of your beloved GOP has you feeling (pace) a wee bit hopeful, maybe?
There are currently 1 users browsing this thread. (0 members and 1 guests)
Posting Permissions
