Reply With Quote
NeoCons are former leftist, hense the need for foreign intervention.we went into iraq because they got tired of all the ing from the left over the years about not doing enough nation building.
we went into iraq because they got tired of all the ing from the left over the years about not doing enough nation building.Can you produce a quote where he said he got tired of the left's ing that there wasn't enough nation building?
Of course not.
NeoCons are former leftist, hense the need for foreign intervention.we went into iraq because they got tired of all the ing from the left over the years about not doing enough nation building.
Yes, but the analogy is far, and I mean really far, from perfect.
Look Yoni, if there were WMDs in Iraq, Amercian soldiers would have found them by now. No matter how much you spin, facts are facts.
And the argument there was a strong the link between Saddam and AQ is as blurry as they come.
America made a mistake going to war against Saddam. The fact they have spent billions of dollars in this worthless war is mind boggling.
Why? Why would they have found them by now? Do you realize how big Iraq is and how easily concealable are the components of such weapons?
And, coming more and more into focus with every translated do ent.
This is your opinion. Granted, it is shared by many but equally not by others. I think there was ample justification for the invasion of Iraq. That you don't see that is, in my mind, boggling as well.
Because they were completely at the ready and we surprised Saddam according to your conflicting scenarios.Why? Why would they have found them by now? Do you realize how big Iraq is and how easily concealable are the components of such weapons?The funny part is, you have complete faith in the knowledge of Saddam's underlings when it is obvious that your star witness lied either before or after the invasion so he could get $100,000. Is it possible in your world that these do ents you wave in our faces that a desperate Bush administration won't even pimp were made by folks who really didn't know what the status of the WMD programs actually was? Absolutely.And, coming more and more into focus with every translated do ent.Given the real threats that the US faces today, the illusory threat that we made ourselves believe Iraq posed to us could go down in history as the biggest foreign policy blunder ever commited by this country.This is your opinion. Granted, it is shared by many but equally not by others. I think there was ample justification for the invasion of Iraq. That you don't see that is, in my mind, boggling as well.
In the 1990s, liberal foreign-policy wonks in and out of the Clinton administration had pretty much one serious foreign-policy idea: nation-building. Many conservatives, for reasons good and bad, objected to the idea. America didn’t need to fix Yugoslavia, Somalia, Haiti and other imploding nations—that’s foreign policy as social work, conservatives said. In the 2000 presidential campaign, George Bush opposed nation-building while Al Gore supported it. Gore was right and Bush was wrong, though neither quite appreciated why. Liberal enthusiasm for nation-building—which should really be called “state building”—was largely based in do-gooderism. Conservative opposition was largely grounded in national security. “Superpowers don’t do windows,” remarked John Hillen, a conservative foreign-policy realist and currently a State Department official.we went into iraq because they got tired of all the ing from the left over the years about not doing enough nation building.
Much has been made of President Bush’s “hypocrisy” for now embracing a policy he once opposed. Less criticism has been directed at liberal Democrats who championed nation-building when it wasn’t in our national interest but denounce it now that it is. John Kerry’s vote against the $87 billion Iraqi reconstruction legislation symbolized a bizarre flip-flop, not just on Kerry’s part but on the part of the Democratic party in general. If all the rhetoric about the “root causes” of terrorism—poverty, disease, political instability, hopelessness, etc.—are to be taken seriously, then the morally compelling position on Iraq (and Afghanistan) should be to spend whatever it takes to get Iraq and other crucial failed states up and running on the path to normalcy and decency. That is, in effect, what many liberals are saying about Sudan.
Credit the Weekly Standard when you rip them off.
nope it's NRO.... pretty much like the left posting NYT and Nation editorials.....
They post links, doofus.
doofus.. I posted a thread called "who lost the world" read it for yourself....
I read this one. Link it.
better try this link...
http://article.nationalreview.com/?q...VkMzI0M2EwZWQ=
You and the President say it was nessesary to invade Iraq.
Based on the facts, I say it wasn't.
The one thing we all have in common is... this mission has failed.
Is it better to have failed at something that isn't nessesary, or better to have failed at something that is?
There are currently 1 users browsing this thread. (0 members and 1 guests)
Posting Permissions