For liberal, At Forum armchair Generals

[maluckey]

http://www.ciaonet.org/isa/pem01/

I couldn't have said it better. This one has sources and all.


Friends shouldn't let liberals be in charge of National Security.

 

[Moonbeam]

Linkified

What's with you lazy bastard conservatives, to dumb or too lazy to link? And what would persuade you to think anybody would wade through that BIG pile of manure?

 

[Dari]

I couldn't agree more. The liberals go in there with their heart, but not their stomachs. Furthermore, they ran away either as soon as a soldiers died or a new leader comes to power. Clinton was an utter joke and complete failure when it came to fighting wars that helped american security. But don't tell that to the liberals. They loved his fruitless wars.

"I will fight and die for Israel"- B.J. Clinton.
The bastard has no problem fighting for another country. But for the United States? Hell no. A national disgrace.

 

[Moonbeam]

Where are all the rich Republican kids dying for America?

 

[Bowfinger]

Cultural values cause liberal states to intervene in response to humanitarian crises, human rights violations and political tyranny in states where they lack more concrete national interests. At the same time, however, the political constraints imposed by liberal institutions of governance make these states reluctant to use force or to pay high costs to achieve liberal goals.

According to the Bush-lite and his YABAs, we invaded Iraq for humanitarian reasons, to "liberate" the Iraqis, and not because of the WMDs that weren't. These same people say we don't need more people in Iraq, in spite of multiple real generals who say we do, because it costs to much. So are you saying that Bush and his loyal minions are liberals?

I am so confused.

 

[Bowfinger]

Originally posted by: Moonbeam
Where are all the rich Republican kids dying for America?

Just like the Dems, the smart ones go to Oxford -- hypothetically speaking.

 

[outriding]

Did you happen to see the army's CALL website before it was taken down ?

Do a search for it here. There was a topic on it.

Also did you see the CNN's crossfire with Rumsfled on it before the war with Iraq?

During the caller question part of the show a caller asked rumsfled what does the US plan on handling the terrorists in iraq. All rumsfeld could say was dont worry about the situations in iraq we are the experts and you should not even think of these type of things.

If liberals are soo bad with national security then ..

Why Republicans limit Clintons anti-terrorists bill?
Why didnt cheney meet with the anti terrorists groups before 9/11?
Why did the whitehouse shelve the Hart/Rudman reports ?
Clinton tried to kill bin laden twice why didnt bush keep it up ?

 

[Dari]

Originally posted by: Bowfinger

Cultural values cause liberal states to intervene in response to humanitarian crises, human rights violations and political tyranny in states where they lack more concrete national interests. At the same time, however, the political constraints imposed by liberal institutions of governance make these states reluctant to use force or to pay high costs to achieve liberal goals.

According to the Bush-lite and his YABAs, we invaded Iraq for humanitarian reasons, to "liberate" the Iraqis, and not because of the WMDs that weren't. These same people say we don't need more people in Iraq, in spite of multiple real generals who say we do, because it costs to much. So are you saying that Bush and his loyal minions are liberals?

I am so confused.

No one went to Iraq for humanitarian reasons. Humanitarian reasoning was used to satiate the liberals in this country. We went into iraq because Hussein was a threat to the United States (16 Article VII UN resolutions come to mind) and the neighborhood of which the United States has strategic interests.

 

[abaez]

Originally posted by: Dari

Originally posted by: Bowfinger

Cultural values cause liberal states to intervene in response to humanitarian crises, human rights violations and political tyranny in states where they lack more concrete national interests. At the same time, however, the political constraints imposed by liberal institutions of governance make these states reluctant to use force or to pay high costs to achieve liberal goals.

According to the Bush-lite and his YABAs, we invaded Iraq for humanitarian reasons, to "liberate" the Iraqis, and not because of the WMDs that weren't. These same people say we don't need more people in Iraq, in spite of multiple real generals who say we do, because it costs to much. So are you saying that Bush and his loyal minions are liberals?

I am so confused.

No one went to Iraq for humanitarian reasons. Humanitarian reasoning was used to satiate the liberals in this country. We went into iraq because Hussein was a threat to the United States (16 Article VII UN resolutions come to mind) and the neighborhood of which the United States has strategic interests.

 

[Bowfinger]

Originally posted by: Dari

Originally posted by: Bowfinger

Cultural values cause liberal states to intervene in response to humanitarian crises, human rights violations and political tyranny in states where they lack more concrete national interests. At the same time, however, the political constraints imposed by liberal institutions of governance make these states reluctant to use force or to pay high costs to achieve liberal goals.

According to the Bush-lite and his YABAs, we invaded Iraq for humanitarian reasons, to "liberate" the Iraqis, and not because of the WMDs that weren't. These same people say we don't need more people in Iraq, in spite of multiple real generals who say we do, because it costs to much. So are you saying that Bush and his loyal minions are liberals?

I am so confused.

No one went to Iraq for humanitarian reasons. Humanitarian reasoning was used to satiate the liberals in this country. We went into iraq because Hussein was a threat to the United States (16 Article VII UN resolutions come to mind) and the neighborhood of which the United States has strategic interests.

In other words, Bush is still lying about why we went to Iraq?

Dari, I do believe we're making progress. Most of us knew Bush was lying all along. And no, Iraq was NOT a threat to the United States. That pretty much means there's no damn reason for us to be in Iraq at all.

 

[Red Dawn]

Originally posted by: Bowfinger

Originally posted by: Dari

Originally posted by: Bowfinger

Cultural values cause liberal states to intervene in response to humanitarian crises, human rights violations and political tyranny in states where they lack more concrete national interests. At the same time, however, the political constraints imposed by liberal institutions of governance make these states reluctant to use force or to pay high costs to achieve liberal goals.

According to the Bush-lite and his YABAs, we invaded Iraq for humanitarian reasons, to "liberate" the Iraqis, and not because of the WMDs that weren't. These same people say we don't need more people in Iraq, in spite of multiple real generals who say we do, because it costs to much. So are you saying that Bush and his loyal minions are liberals?

I am so confused.

No one went to Iraq for humanitarian reasons. Humanitarian reasoning was used to satiate the liberals in this country. We went into iraq because Hussein was a threat to the United States (16 Article VII UN resolutions come to mind) and the neighborhood of which the United States has strategic interests.

In other words, Bush is still lying about why we went to Iraq?

Dari, I do believe we're making progress. Most of us knew Bush was lying all along. And no, Iraq was NOT a threat to the United States. That pretty much means there's no damn reason for us to be in Iraq at all.

Well now that we are there we can't just pack up and leave unfortunately

 

[Bowfinger]

Originally posted by: Red Dawn

Originally posted by: Bowfinger

Originally posted by: Dari
No one went to Iraq for humanitarian reasons. Humanitarian reasoning was used to satiate the liberals in this country. We went into iraq because Hussein was a threat to the United States (16 Article VII UN resolutions come to mind) and the neighborhood of which the United States has strategic interests.

In other words, Bush is still lying about why we went to Iraq?

Dari, I do believe we're making progress. Most of us knew Bush was lying all along. And no, Iraq was NOT a threat to the United States. That pretty much means there's no damn reason for us to be in Iraq at all.

Well now that we are there we can't just pack up and leave unfortunately

Agreed. We broke it, we're responsible for fixing it.

 

[Gaard]

So finally we have an R admit that Bush is lying. Now we just have to work on what the lie is. At least it's a step in the right direction.

 

[CADsortaGUY]

Originally posted by: Gaard
So finally we have an R admit that Bush is lying. Now we just have to work on what the lie is. At least it's a step in the right direction.

And you wondered why I didn't answer your questions in the other thread but proposed and answered my own.

CkG

 

[Bowfinger]

Originally posted by: CADkindaGUY

Originally posted by: Gaard
So finally we have an R admit that Bush is lying. Now we just have to work on what the lie is. At least it's a step in the right direction.

And you wondered why I didn't answer your questions in the other thread but proposed and answered my own.

CkG

Because you might accidentally blurt out the truth?

 

[Gaard]

Originally posted by: CADkindaGUY

Originally posted by: Gaard
So finally we have an R admit that Bush is lying. Now we just have to work on what the lie is. At least it's a step in the right direction.

And you wondered why I didn't answer your questions in the other thread but proposed and answered my own.

CkG

Do you disagree that Dari is saying Bush is a liar?

And I know why you refuse to answer the question...and it has nothing to do with your stated reasons.

 

[Zebo]

Originally posted by: Bowfinger

Originally posted by: Dari

Originally posted by: Bowfinger

Cultural values cause liberal states to intervene in response to humanitarian crises, human rights violations and political tyranny in states where they lack more concrete national interests. At the same time, however, the political constraints imposed by liberal institutions of governance make these states reluctant to use force or to pay high costs to achieve liberal goals.

According to the Bush-lite and his YABAs, we invaded Iraq for humanitarian reasons, to "liberate" the Iraqis, and not because of the WMDs that weren't. These same people say we don't need more people in Iraq, in spite of multiple real generals who say we do, because it costs to much. So are you saying that Bush and his loyal minions are liberals?

I am so confused.

No one went to Iraq for humanitarian reasons. Humanitarian reasoning was used to satiate the liberals in this country. We went into iraq because Hussein was a threat to the United States (16 Article VII UN resolutions come to mind) and the neighborhood of which the United States has strategic interests.

In other words, Bush is still lying about why we went to Iraq?

Dari, I do believe we're making progress. Most of us knew Bush was lying all along. And no, Iraq was NOT a threat to the United States. That pretty much means there's no damn reason for us to be in Iraq at all.

Oh there are reasons like finishing what we started in 91, big business carpetbagging, securing the relm with a stable friendly oil supply and to a lessor extent defense contrators dictating national policy and the best way for them is to make war and make threats to insure cold-war expenditures. I've never bought the WMD threat idea, terror angle (look to the country west of Iraq though), the selective enforcement of UN santions or liberty mantra all for public consumption.

 

[CADsortaGUY]

Originally posted by: Gaard

Originally posted by: CADkindaGUY

Originally posted by: Gaard
So finally we have an R admit that Bush is lying. Now we just have to work on what the lie is. At least it's a step in the right direction.

And you wondered why I didn't answer your questions in the other thread but proposed and answered my own.

CkG

Do you disagree that Dari is saying Bush is a liar?

And I know why you refuse to answer the question...and it has nothing to do with your stated reasons.

No, It's because you will run wild with any hint of "negativity". What Dari said did not say Bush lied - he said he doesn't think that we went there for Humanitarian reasons, which may be true to an extent. You guys want to paint this in a scenario that only one reason led to Bush's decision and we've been over this time and time again. There were many reasons - so while Bush may have not gone in for Humanitarian reasons - it most definitely played a part. To deny that would be dishonest. We can debate how much it played a part but to say Bush "lied" is asinine.

Now again - I refused to answer your loaded question because of this sort of scenario. I reframed the question in a manner in which I could offer my opinion without allowing you to think my answer means opposite of, or more than what I really think.

CkG

 

[Red Dawn]

To say we went in there for humanitarian reasons is the biggest pile of BS I have ever heard.

 

[Gaard]

Originally posted by: CADkindaGUY

Originally posted by: Gaard

Originally posted by: CADkindaGUY

Originally posted by: Gaard
So finally we have an R admit that Bush is lying. Now we just have to work on what the lie is. At least it's a step in the right direction.

And you wondered why I didn't answer your questions in the other thread but proposed and answered my own.

CkG

Do you disagree that Dari is saying Bush is a liar?

And I know why you refuse to answer the question...and it has nothing to do with your stated reasons.

No, It's because you will run wild with any hint of "negativity". What Dari said did not say Bush lied - he said he doesn't think that we went there for Humanitarian reasons, which may be true to an extent. You guys want to paint this in a scenario that only one reason led to Bush's decision and we've been over this time and time again. There were many reasons - so while Bush may have not gone in for Humanitarian reasons - it most definitely played a part. To deny that would be dishonest. We can debate how much it played a part but to say Bush "lied" is asinine.

Now again - I refused to answer your loaded question because of this sort of scenario. I reframed the question in a manner in which I could offer my opinion without allowing you to think my answer means opposite of, or more than what I really think.

CkG

This is what Dari said...
<<No one went to Iraq for humanitarian reasons. Humanitarian reasoning was used to satiate the liberals in this country.>>

 

[Gaard]

This is a statement by Bowfinger from another thread...

Crayzee - before you drive yourself crazy -- no pun intended -- you need to know that Sir Cad never, ever, ever, admits he was wrong about anything. Ever. Believe me, I have tried. Even if you can corner him with incontrovertible, fastidiously documented facts, he will explain over and over how your interpretation of his interpretation of your comments re. his comments re. God knows what is wrong, and he is right. He is like the Black Knight from Monty Python and the Holy Grail: chop off a leg, "it's only a flesh wound." "No you didn't." "I beat you."

Now, it seems to me that this would be a perfect opportunity for you to prove him wrong. It really wouldn't make you any less of a man to be wrong now and then, you know. On the contrary, it makes you a little bigger each time you can admit to being wrong.

"Yeah, I guess dari is saying Bush lied."

Wouldn't it be comical if Dari came on here later and said that, yes, he was saying that Bush was lied.

 

[Red Dawn]

Originally posted by: Gaard
This is a statement by Bowfinger from another thread...

Crayzee - before you drive yourself crazy -- no pun intended -- you need to know that Sir Cad never, ever, ever, admits he was wrong about anything. Ever. Believe me, I have tried. Even if you can corner him with incontrovertible, fastidiously documented facts, he will explain over and over how your interpretation of his interpretation of your comments re. his comments re. God knows what is wrong, and he is right. He is like the Black Knight from Monty Python and the Holy Grail: chop off a leg, "it's only a flesh wound." "No you didn't." "I beat you."

Now, it seems to me that this would be a perfect opportunity for you to prove him wrong. It really wouldn't make you any less of a man to be wrong now and then, you know. On the contrary, it makes you a little bigger each time you can admit to being wrong.

"Yeah, I guess dari is saying Bush lied."

Wouldn't it be comical if Dari came on here later and said that, yes, he was saying that Bush was lied.

Dari would only say that if his Suggar Daddy/Mentor gave him permission to do so!

 

[0roo0roo]

just remember bush's words during the campaign about using the us military for nation building.

 

[CADsortaGUY]

Originally posted by: Gaard

Originally posted by: CADkindaGUY

Originally posted by: Gaard

Originally posted by: CADkindaGUY

Originally posted by: Gaard
So finally we have an R admit that Bush is lying. Now we just have to work on what the lie is. At least it's a step in the right direction.

And you wondered why I didn't answer your questions in the other thread but proposed and answered my own.

CkG

Do you disagree that Dari is saying Bush is a liar?

And I know why you refuse to answer the question...and it has nothing to do with your stated reasons.

No, It's because you will run wild with any hint of "negativity". What Dari said did not say Bush lied - he said he doesn't think that we went there for Humanitarian reasons, which may be true to an extent. You guys want to paint this in a scenario that only one reason led to Bush's decision and we've been over this time and time again. There were many reasons - so while Bush may have not gone in for Humanitarian reasons - it most definitely played a part. To deny that would be dishonest. We can debate how much it played a part but to say Bush "lied" is asinine.

Now again - I refused to answer your loaded question because of this sort of scenario. I reframed the question in a manner in which I could offer my opinion without allowing you to think my answer means opposite of, or more than what I really think.

CkG

This is what Dari said...
<<No one went to Iraq for humanitarian reasons. Humanitarian reasoning was used to satiate the liberals in this country.>>

And that somehow turns out to say "Bush lied" how? Spin it how you want - you guys are getting good at turning things that weren't said- into things you think are.

And I don't really care if Dari thinks "Bush lied" - his statement you took to mean that, really didn't say that. So again - until he says he thinks that, I suggest you keep yourself from running wild with your spin. But, even if he does hold that opinion that you are trying to say he did by saying what he did - it still doesn't mean Bush really did "lie" about humanitarian goals.

But it's nice to see you are now backing off your interpretation that Dari said Bush lied in his statement and will wait for a different statement from Dari.

CkG

 

[Dari]

Originally posted by: CADkindaGUY

Originally posted by: Gaard

Originally posted by: CADkindaGUY

Originally posted by: Gaard

Originally posted by: CADkindaGUY

Originally posted by: Gaard
So finally we have an R admit that Bush is lying. Now we just have to work on what the lie is. At least it's a step in the right direction.

And you wondered why I didn't answer your questions in the other thread but proposed and answered my own.

CkG

Do you disagree that Dari is saying Bush is a liar?

And I know why you refuse to answer the question...and it has nothing to do with your stated reasons.

No, It's because you will run wild with any hint of "negativity". What Dari said did not say Bush lied - he said he doesn't think that we went there for Humanitarian reasons, which may be true to an extent. You guys want to paint this in a scenario that only one reason led to Bush's decision and we've been over this time and time again. There were many reasons - so while Bush may have not gone in for Humanitarian reasons - it most definitely played a part. To deny that would be dishonest. We can debate how much it played a part but to say Bush "lied" is asinine.

Now again - I refused to answer your loaded question because of this sort of scenario. I reframed the question in a manner in which I could offer my opinion without allowing you to think my answer means opposite of, or more than what I really think.

CkG

This is what Dari said...
<<No one went to Iraq for humanitarian reasons. Humanitarian reasoning was used to satiate the liberals in this country.>>

And that somehow turns out to say "Bush lied" how? Spin it how you want - you guys are getting good at turning things that weren't said- into things you think are.

And I don't really care if Dari thinks "Bush lied" - his statement you took to mean that, really didn't say that. So again - until he says he thinks that, I suggest you keep yourself from running wild with your spin. But, even if he does hold that opinion that you are trying to say he did by saying what he did - it still doesn't mean Bush really did "lie" about humanitarian goals.

But it's nice to see you are now backing off your interpretation that Dari said Bush lied in his statement and will wait for a different statement from Dari.

CkG

How convenient for Gaard to believe me when it suits him, even if he takes my statement out of context. Don't you think, Cad? From now on, I will take Gaard's statements word by word, keeping what I like and dispensing with what I don't. Sounds good?