GET READY for Obamas war in Syria.

[First]

No, he did not.

Bush did. Even then it wasn't up to him, the UN refused to extend the mandate for our presence. The UN said that Iraq must approve it, and they did not.

Fern

lol. Oh Fern, you're truly a wingnut now.

 

[JTsyo]

Shouldn't this be a UN issue? Why is it any of our business?

That or the Arab League. Why not use some of that oil money to help save a few of their brethren from oppression. :sneaky:

Though one concern should be what happens to them once the government falls.

 

[Matt1970]

OMFG that crazy negro is gunna git us all kilt!!!!

When will this nonsense end?

And the race baiter enters the debate.

 

[blackangst1]

lol. Oh Fern, you're truly a wingnut now.

What did he say thats incorrect?

 

[werepossum]

lol. Oh Fern, you're truly a wingnut now.

What he posted was entirely factual. The timetable for withdrawal was set under Bush because the Iraqis refused to authorize an extension without Coalition troops being subject to Iraqi law, and of course coalition nations were unwilling to do so. Obama could have sped this up; he did not. He could not have legally extended the occupation even had he the desire to do so. Neither could McCain, had he been elected.

 

[marincounty]

And the libertrols were all wetting themselves with anger and fear the Romney would take us to war with Syria. Who knows if anything will come over this, but if Obama gets it on with Syria, the media and the libs will be right there with him. Any dissent will be 'unpatriotic'.

Liberals are not afraid of war, they volunteer and serve their country when called. Republiklans have daddy call in some favors and get out of serving in war zones preferring to stay safe stateside or dodging the draft in France.
If our country is at war the only patriotic thing to do is support our troops and our country.
Just like all of America rallied around Bush when he invaded Iraq. Only righties are suggesting to not support our troops and our president if we go to war in Syria.

 

[hal2kilo]

Liberals are not afraid of war, they volunteer and serve their country when called. Republiklans have daddy call in some favors and get out of serving in war zones preferring to stay safe stateside or dodging the draft in France.
If our country is at war the only patriotic thing to do is support our troops and our country.
Just like all of America rallied around Bush when he invaded Iraq. Only righties are suggesting to not support our troops and our president if we go to war in Syria.

OOh, quite the rim shot!:thumbsup:

 

[First]

What did he say thats incorrect?

The whole part about Bush ending the Iraq war, considering no such thing occurred in reality; that was in fact Obama, who decided to do what he said he'd do and then actually did it, which was to pull out within 18-24 months from Iraq. It was on TV and quite spectacular to see.

Now I certainly commend Bush for finally setting a timetable for withdrawal in Iraq in the last December of his presidency, of course this was highly laughable considering years of politicizing "timetables" as giving into the enemy or being thought of as "cutting and running". But fact is we will never know if Bush would have kept his word, nor did he actually ever prove it.

 

[blackangst1]

Liberals are not afraid of war, they volunteer and serve their country when called. Republiklans have daddy call in some favors and get out of serving in war zones preferring to stay safe stateside or dodging the draft in France.
If our country is at war the only patriotic thing to do is support our troops and our country.
Just like all of America rallied around Bush when he invaded Iraq. Only righties are suggesting to not support our troops and our president if we go to war in Syria.

Which righties? Or are you speaking in liberal-hyperbole-lets-make-shit-up-about-the-right-speak?

 

[Fern]

The whole part about Bush ending the Iraq war, considering no such thing occurred in reality; that was in fact Obama, who decided to do what he said he'd do and then actually did it, which was to pull out within 18-24 months from Iraq. It was on TV and quite spectacular to see.

Now I certainly commend Bush for finally setting a timetable for withdrawal in Iraq in the last December of his presidency, of course this was highly laughable considering years of politicizing "timetables" as giving into the enemy or being thought of as "cutting and running". But fact is we will never know if Bush would have kept his word, nor did he actually ever prove it.

Bullsh1t.

Obama followed Bush's plan.

And you're totally ignoring the reality of how that timetable was forced upon us: The UN refused to extend the mandate. There was no choice in the matter.

Fern

 

[blackangst1]

The whole part about Bush ending the Iraq war, considering no such thing occurred in reality; that was in fact Obama, who decided to do what he said he'd do and then actually did it, which was to pull out within 18-24 months from Iraq. It was on TV and quite spectacular to see.

Now I certainly commend Bush for finally setting a timetable for withdrawal in Iraq in the last December of his presidency, of course this was highly laughable considering years of politicizing "timetables" as giving into the enemy or being thought of as "cutting and running". But fact is we will never know if Bush would have kept his word, nor did he actually ever prove it.

Now THAT, my friends, is revisionist history!

 

[werepossum]

Liberals are not afraid of war, they volunteer and serve their country when called. Republiklans have daddy call in some favors and get out of serving in war zones preferring to stay safe stateside or dodging the draft in France.
If our country is at war the only patriotic thing to do is support our troops and our country.
Just like all of America rallied around Bush when he invaded Iraq. Only righties are suggesting to not support our troops and our president if we go to war in Syria.

His point wasn't that liberals are afraid of war, but rather that liberals are totally consumed with whether it's their guy or not doing it. If it's a liberal or a Democrat (but I repeat myself) then it's always good; otherwise it's always bad.

To be fair, that's a charge that can often be honestly levied against those of us on the right as well. We all tend to more readily agree with something if it's proposed by someone with whom we generally agree and/or want to agree.

Now THAT, my friends, is revisionist history!

One wonders whether he is honestly incapable of perceiving the world except as filtered through political dogma, or merely unwilling. If the former, there's a UN treaty just waiting for him. If the latter, well, welcome to the club. It's called "everyone" and we hold meetings every Friday night at a bar near you.

 

[First]

Bullsh1t.

Obama followed Bush's plan.

Obama claimed he'd withdraw troops from Iraq within about ~ 18 months of his presidency well over a year before Bush penned the deal with Iraq in December 2008. This is a fact you will have to learn to deal with on your own time.

And you're totally ignoring the reality of how that timetable was forced upon us: The UN refused to extend the mandate. There was no choice in the matter.

Fern

Huh? Since when does the UN dictate American foreign policy in a major war? Did this stop us in 2003 when the coalition of the willing outside Britain included exactly no UN support?

 

[Fern]

-snip-
Huh? Since when does the UN dictate American foreign policy in a major war? Did this stop us in 2003 when the coalition of the willing outside Britain included exactly no UN support?

Since we were there under a UN mandate.

Fern

 

[First]

Since we were there under a UN mandate.

Fern

....so your position is that the Bush administration would have not entered Iraq post-911 tensions, without a UN mandate? I just want to get this on the record before moving on.

 

[Fern]

....so your position is that the Bush administration would have not entered Iraq post-911 tensions, without a UN mandate? I just want to get this on the record before moving on.

I don't think so. At least not in the manner he did.

Without the UN mandate I don't believe there is a coalition, at least not as much of one. (Who knows, maybe England would go along.)

But I don't see any kind of long occupation like we did without that UN mandate. Yeah, he might've bombed them, but I'm kinda doubtful of any kind of troop invasion, and certainly not one that was long and drawn out. And I definitely don't see us creating any type of provisional government or engaging in nation building. Without UN approval it's just not going to happen IMO.

Fern

 

[werepossum]

I don't think so. At least not in the manner he did.

Without the UN mandate I don't believe there is a coalition, at least not as much of one. (Who knows, maybe England would go along.)

But I don't see any kind of long occupation like we did without that UN mandate. Yeah, he might've bombed them, but I'm kinda doubtful of any kind of troop invasion, and certainly not one that was long and drawn out. And I definitely don't see us creating any type of provisional government or engaging in nation building. Without UN approval it's just not going to happen IMO.

Fern

Without the UN mandate Hussein keeps Kuwait, we never kick him out under Bush I, he's just another asshole Middle East dictator, and thus we never invade under Bush II. You will never however convince a proggie of that, for only conservative Americans can be evil in their book. Hussein never had any weapons of mass destruction, and anyway we gave them to him so all those people were really killed by us. Hussein only invaded Kuwait because Bush I told him it was okay. Hussein was a good guy, a secular hero fighting Khomeni's evil salafists, and anyway both were in power only because Ronald Reagan. All roads of blame literally begin and end with the Republican Party.

 

[First]

I don't think so. At least not in the manner he did.

Without the UN mandate I don't believe there is a coalition, at least not as much of one. (Who knows, maybe England would go along.)

OK, but I think it needs to be said that final coalition of the willing included no major industrialized nation outside of Britain, Australia and Poland, with Australia and Poland offering no real support in troops or treasure beyond token gestures. It was the U.S. and Britain. I'm not sure how the major UN powers at the time (Germany, France, China, Russia, India, etc.) could have shown more of a repudiation of Iraq, since we're talking UN mandates. Yet the Bush administration still decided to forge ahead. It's not inconceivable they would have done whatever they felt like doing. Knowing that, it's not a good excuse to say Bush couldn't stay in Iraq because of a UN mandate. Come on.

But I don't see any kind of long occupation like we did without that UN mandate. Yeah, he might've bombed them, but I'm kinda doubtful of any kind of troop invasion, and certainly not one that was long and drawn out. And I definitely don't see us creating any type of provisional government or engaging in nation building. Without UN approval it's just not going to happen IMO.

Fern

Yeah, again, I think you're naive if you think the Bush administration wouldn't have engaged in the Iraq war without a UN mandate. I just don't see any evidence that the Bush admin cared one way or another.

 

[OutHouse]

Obama claimed he'd withdraw troops from Iraq within about ~ 18 months of his presidency well over a year before Bush penned the deal with Iraq in December 2008. This is a fact you will have to learn to deal with on your own time.

im pretty sure that the end of the iraq war started in 2007 with the surge of extra troops.

 

[Generator]

Obvious scam on the American people once again. The grand plan for the Middle East seems to have unstoppable regardless of whoever is in the white house. The Brown Bomber Barack Obama has blood on his hands that will revisit us in the form of blowback for the remainder of our lifetimes.